PhotoJoe wrote:
Why wouldnt you call a Playboy Photographer a GWC. 
He's a Creep, obviously got into the bizz to take pics of naked girls.
and i wouldnt be suprised if he has screwed a few of the models he's shot.

Mmm not sure if you were joking or not, but it is not uncommon that some of the glamour photographers are gay men or straight women and just like the female form, or it is just a good paying job that they fell into.

Hollywood Starlet wrote:
Do you agree with this definition of "GWC?"

GWC -Guy With Camera

Commonly used in the modeling/photographer biz, 'GWC' is any poser/creep with a digital camera pretending to be a pro/semi-pro photographer. With the introduction of digital cameras, GWC's have appeared like an explosion in a toy store.

GWC's typically steal the work of others and don't have any references.
"Some GWC asked me to 'test' for him, what a creep."

"What's with all the GWC's on OneModelPlace.com, lately?"

"Damn GWC's are ruining it for the rest of us." - Pro Photographers

Provided by: www.urbandictionary.com


...or do you have a better definition?

I hope to someday reach the status of GWC. If I practice hard and never give up, I may just get there.

Honestly, I just wish this term would go away. It's more commonly used as an insult than anything else.

In real life for a lot of models, GWC=rent, food, clothing, gas, etc. so they serve their purpose and as long as everyone involved are consenting adults and no one gets hurt, I say let the GWCs have their fun.

Paul Bryson Photography wrote:
yay for ancient threads.

and yay for feeling good about putting other people down!

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:
I hope to someday reach the status of GWC. If I practice hard and never give up, I may just get there.

Honestly, I just wish this term would go away. It's more commonly used as an insult than anything else.

In real life for a lot of models, GWC=rent, food, clothing, gas, etc. so they serve their purpose and as long as everyone involved are consenting adults and no one gets hurt, I say let the GWCs have their fun.

QFT!!!

I don't provide rent, food, etc. but I work very hard on improving my work and on giving the models useful pictures for their portfolios, but if I ever reach a point where I no longer enjoy shooting a beautiful naked woman I'll just shoot myself.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

QFT!!!

I don't provide rent, food, etc. but I work very hard on improving my work and on giving the models useful pictures for their portfolios, but if I ever reach a point where I no longer enjoy shooting a beautiful naked woman I'll just shoot myself.

kool, hard work rocks

Photons 2 Pixels Images wrote:

I hope to someday reach the status of GWC. If I practice hard and never give up, I may just get there.

Honestly, I just wish this term would go away. It's more commonly used as an insult than anything else.

In real life for a lot of models, GWC=rent, food, clothing, gas, etc. so they serve their purpose and as long as everyone involved are consenting adults and no one gets hurt, I say let the GWCs have their fun.

i hope i resist becoming a GWC forever, i think its a distraction
GWC, its an apropriate term for a huge % of photographers.. That makes it more common than bad.

CA and L wrote:
but I think that sometimes the term is used to loosely.

Yeah, GWC, Troll, and White Knight are derogatory terms people use in any situation, regardless of actual merit, so people can appear superior to other people.

It is like calling someone a thief of photographic images, or photographic plagiarism.  The accusation, by itself, is more powerful than the reality of whether said person is actually a thief or not.

These terms are usually employed by desperate people, as ad hominem, in place of a valid argument.

I personally avoid these terms cause they're so subjective and subject to change.

LeDeux Art wrote:
GWC's are for a purpose, to pay llamas to get nekid!

Guys with Cash

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
While GWC is used on many sites to mean simply "guy with camera" with the implication that he may not have much skill or professionalism, the llama Mayhem usage is a little stricter:-

https://www.modelmayhem.com/faqs.php?faq_text_id=22

Photos by Frizz wrote:
that pretty much sums it up

If the first reply summed it up, why is this thing still going?  Oh, yeah, GWC's like me keep responding!  lol

Chris Keeling wrote:

None of these statements have anything to do with the term GWC.  A GWC label has nothing to do with quality of work, references, stealing images, or any of the above.

A GWC is simply someone who doesn't care about the image making process, he takes pictures for the single purpose of getting in the company of the object of his desire.  He can be very talented and produce fantastic work and still be a GWC, depending on his true reason for producing that fantastic work.

So no, I don't agree with your definition.

then I guess by that definition I am not a GWC...cuz..i could care less about naked girls in front of me....seen so many..although every once in a while..ahh nevermind

KGR PHOTO wrote:
Here's my $0.02 on the subject ...

Simply put, the GWC is a guy who spends a lot of money on a professional camera and somehow thinks he now qualifies to shoot with models. In the majority of cases, the GWC has no experience or practical training and simply wants to entice young and naive aspiring models into taking pictures that are normally for private use and involve nudity or semi-nudity.

While the above is an excerpt from the web site listed below, it represents my feelings about GWC's. Read the rest of the article for yourself, it's pretty informing:

http://www.ehow.com/how_4470752_legit-p … z1CgCPD5Lm

Happy reading!

how do you find these threads and then reiterate what everyone has said for the past 2 years? LOL

W A L L E R  wrote:
Wow!  This thread is still going on?  I first responded to this in February last year.  I'm definitely a guy with a camera.  I don't come close to claiming to be a professional photographer.  However, I also don't try to bed the models.  Hell, I don't even get a boner when shooting with a nude model.  I'm just out there trying to capture the best images possible.

You do have to give the GWC credit though.  There are a lot of "traveling models" out there making a good living from them.

Let's try this yet again; "GWC" has nothing to do with whether one is paid, or the quality of the images.  Sometimes, but not always, the STYLE of the images is an indication.  GWC is about motive; whether it's "being around a female" which is pretty harmless, or outright exploitation / rape, which of course isn't.

It has been widely reported that plenty of "professional industry photographers" are blatant GWCs.  Worse yet, they and their non photographer counterparts often exploit young (14-16) girls who hope to have careers as models.

Johnny Vy wrote:
www.twitter.com/proguywcamera

Knock yourselves out everyone.

Nice.. so you bumped this thread for this?


Interesting...

Nothing new to add.. this thread is dead.

ETA:
Apparently I posted in this thread back in '09..

Johnny Vy wrote:
Knock yourselves out everyone.

how damp of you.

K E E L I N G wrote:

None of these statements have anything to do with the term GWC.  A GWC label has nothing to do with quality of work, references, stealing images, or any of the above.

A GWC is simply someone who doesn't care about the image making process, he takes pictures for the single purpose of getting in the company of the object of his desire.  He can be very talented and produce fantastic work and still be a GWC, depending on his true reason for producing that fantastic work.

So no, I don't agree with your definition.

So according to that definition I am a GWC ( although the 'very talented' part might be in dispute) But here is where it gets weird.

It is most applicable when I am doing nature photography. I am using my camera as a way of interacting with nature, and the image is very much secondary.

With models it is all about the image, and interaction only as much as needed to get a good image.

With nature a good image is nice, but not essential.

With models if I do not get great images, I feel that I have wasted my time.

PhotoJoe wrote:
Why wouldnt you call a Playboy Photographer a GWC. 
He's a Creep, obviously got into the bizz to take pics of naked girls.
and i wouldnt be suprised if he has screwed a few of the models he's shot.

so whats the diff.   

now if someone is actually steeling photo's and calling them his own...then he's not a GWC...he's a thief.

Either that . . . or he can't spell 'stealing'

Tim Hammond wrote:
A few years ago, an internationally published fashion and commercial photographer who's work would make most people on here drool with jealousy was vacationing in my area.  He contacted me through MM and asked if I knew any local girls who might be easy to talk into bed if they got the chance to be in front of a famous photographer's camera for an hour or so.

I currently know lots and lots of beginner photographers who really don't have the talent or commitment to ever get any better.  They like shooting models, and they're perfect gentlemen during a shoot.

Anyone who thinks GWC status has anything to do with talent, quality of work, or years of experience is an idiot.

I've heard similar stories from quite a few models.  Both highly successful photographers who are very creepy, and incompetent photographers, even incompetent GLAMOUR photographers, who are perfectly professional and respectful in interactions with models.

Hollywood Starlet wrote:
All photographers were once a GWC or FWC - Female.. minus perversion...

You gotta start somewhere, right?

+1