The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.

Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror.

so true..


I am officially a GWC
gwc?

Sita Mae wrote:
After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive,

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh shit.
LMAO.... High-FivE!

Jacob Fakheri wrote:

Well, what you are saying basically implies that there is a license/liberty debate on whether or not you can physically hold an object. As far as I know currently, in laws around the states, there is no licensing exam, no test to take, etc, to be able to physically pick up a camera, and take photographs.

Sorry, but... that's a stupid position. From a purely legal standpoint.

I concur

The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.

Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror.

/discussion.

Digital Fantastique wrote:
I think a GWC's work defines them as such.

Anyone can pick up a camera and shoot but it isn't hard to determine whether someone is a hobbyist or a talented eye with some skills.

You can't fake vision, but I've also seen some skilled photographers with a good working knowledge of lighting and the technical aspects of photography who don't take very interesting photos.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Your work is great, by the way.

You can find many GWCs that have a great grasp of photography, both technically and creatively. They can produce stunning images. Many are well off financially, so they can acquire top of the line cameras and equipment and hire the best models. I tend to think of a GWC based on their behavior. Most that I have met personally are photographers simply because they want to photograph naked women. They tend to be crass and unprofessional, they come on to the models, they touch and fondle them, etc. I have seen them do so in large group settings, so they either don't care what others think or they are ignorant enough to think that their behavior is acceptable.

The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.

Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror.

Exactly.

BMImages Studio wrote:
Most that I have met personally are photographers simply because they want to photograph naked women. They tend to be crass and unprofessional, they come on to the models, they touch and fondle them, etc. I have seen them do so in large group settings, so they either don't care what others think or they are ignorant enough to think that their behavior is acceptable.

The more i hear this stereotype promoted, the less i believe it exists.

BMImages Studio wrote:

You can find many GWCs that have a great grasp of photography, both technically and creatively. They can produce stunning images. Many are well off financially, so they can acquire top of the line cameras and equipment and hire the best models. I tend to think of a GWC based on their behavior. Most that I have met personally are photographers simply because they want to photograph naked women. They tend to be crass and unprofessional, they come on to the models, they touch and fondle them, etc. I have seen them do so in large group settings, so they either don't care what others think or they are ignorant enough to think that their behavior is acceptable.

Good observation.  I actually saw a webmaster of a modeling site exhibit similar behavior... in fact, it's part of what prompted the discussion that led to the first use of the term.

The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.

Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror.

Well said and right on point,GWC are as much a part of this thing we do with a camera as anyone else.They don't owe anyone an explaination  or an apology for what they do or why they do it,the same goes for me or you.Everyone who claims he is only in it for the art and beauty is being a hypocrit,the reason we see beauty and art is because the opposite gender is attractive to us,period.We translate that into many different forms and expressions of appreciation,but deep down inside we are all the same.
   Not to mention some of the best photographers started out as "The Dreaded GWC",and learned something along the way.

The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.

I'd have to say it depends a lot on who's defining it.

Personally, I call anyone who claims to be a "professional" photographer with enough connections in the industry to blackball a "model" who fails to reply to his e-mail but simultaneously claims to be working 70+ hours per week at a job that is *not* photography a "GWC."

stan wigmore photograph wrote:
Well said and right on point,GWC are as much a part of this thing we do with a camera as anyone else.They don't owe anyone an explaination  or an apology for what they do or why they do it,the same goes for me or you.Everyone who claims he is only in it for the art and beauty is being a hypocrit,the reason we see beauty and art is because the opposite gender is attractive to us,period.We translate that into many different forms and expressions of appreciation,but deep down inside we are all the same.
   Not to mention some of the best photographers started out as "The Dreaded GWC",and learned something along the way.

I do not think amateur and GWC are remotely synonymous.

But are you saying you think all photographers want to sleep with their models but inexplicably use cameras for the interaction, instead of the more usual body parts? You think people only photograph the gender which matches their sexual preference?

Cause, if that is what you are saying, it is kinda, ya know, ridiculous.

Expressing sensuality or sexuality or anger or sorrow or any other portion of the human experience through art is the point of the exercise. If the only point is to get next to a naked person, I recommend, ya know, dating.

Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate.  I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business.  I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.

Fuck that.  I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new.  After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.

Yeah.  I said it.

So guess what, folks?  If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?

The problem ain't me.

I think that sums it the fuck up!

Amelia G wrote:
I wondered about this while reading another thread where people were discussing whether the economic downturn would decrease GWCs or give them an edge.

I think it is frustrating for any artist trying to get by to offer someone a totally fair and commercially viable rate and have them come back with the rate a GWC gave them. The whole point is that a GWC is not basing their rates or policies on being a professional artist, so, when paying a model a gajillion dollars an hour or whatever, a GWC does not have to factor in how little they will actually make from wherever the work is likely to be published. I do not think of GWC as meaning someone who is untalented or a beginner necessarily, just someone who is holding the camera for reasons which have little to do with the final image.

How do you define GWC?

Really easy: 

A Photographer is concerned with what they shoot and how it's shot.

A GWC is concerned with who they shot and how they're hot.

Joel

photoscloseup wrote:


would you call ME a GWC?

No, I'd call you effin' hot.

Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate.  I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business.  I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.

Fuck that.  I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new.  After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.

Yeah.  I said it.

So guess what, folks?  If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?

The problem ain't me.

Amen brother!

To paraphrase Chase Jarvis, if you're worried about GWC's, then you need to become a better photographer.  :-)

Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate.  I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business.  I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.

Fuck that.  I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new.  After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.

Yeah.  I said it.

So guess what, folks?  If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?

The problem ain't me.

haha. fuck yeah.

Sita Mae wrote:
...

Ought To Be Shot wrote:
Amen brother!

To paraphrase Chase Jarvis, if you're worried about GWC's, then you need to become a better photographer.  :-)

that thur brother's a sister, brother.

RStephenT wrote:
When we first coined the term "GWC" (in OMP's chat room) after my return from the great OMP Las Vegas shootout it was intended to reflect what I had seen.  GWC is simply a guy who uses his camera to get close to attractive women... the images are secondary.  That's all it was intended to reflect. 

And it is in distinct difference towards amateurs who might be very talented but simply don't make their living from their photographic pursuits.

Calling an amateur, or a newbie a "GWC" automatically is incorrect and offensive.

Confused about why some keep getting deffensive for others in the past having called them a "gwc" ....  if this is the original meaning of the coined term???  I mean, you can call me whatever you want, but I know what I am and am not ---  so just "brush it off" already.  I have a perfect example of a "GWC" but will not place his name on his thread. He's been making a living off of the industry for a long time ....  but the images are crappy, there is no talent involved in the end result ... and one other consistent feature? ... he always tries to get the girls to do nudes .... in a "I've been doing this for years so you can trust me" kinda way.

Anyway --- "And it is in distinct difference towards amateurs who might be very talented but simply don't make their living from their photographic pursuits."

...in distinct difference .... ummmmm ..... what is so hard to understand about this statement????

Amelia G wrote:
I wondered about this while reading another thread where people were discussing whether the economic downturn would decrease GWCs or give them an edge.

I think it is frustrating for any artist trying to get by to offer someone a totally fair and commercially viable rate and have them come back with the rate a GWC gave them. The whole point is that a GWC is not basing their rates or policies on being a professional artist, so, when paying a model a gajillion dollars an hour or whatever, a GWC does not have to factor in how little they will actually make from wherever the work is likely to be published. I do not think of GWC as meaning someone who is untalented or a beginner necessarily, just someone who is holding the camera for reasons which have little to do with the final image.

How do you define GWC?

It might be:
a beginner, talented
a beginner, untalented
someone who is holding the camera for reasons which have little to do with the final image
or anyone with very little equipment and/or knowledge;

hence: GUY with CAMERA.

I don't know how the economy will effect anything yet...
and if a GUY is charging a rate to models, is he even still a GWC anymore?

(I've just picked up a camera for the first time this year...I don't consider myself GWC though).

C and J Photography wrote:
PWC = Pervert with Camera, or is it Perfectionist with Camera.
GWC = Groper with Camera, or is it Gentleman with Camera.
LOV = Lack of (artistic) Vision.

Pervert/Perfectionist WC

I'm not those other 2

and LOV sounds LOVely...

Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate.  I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business.  I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.

Fuck that.  I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new.  After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.

Yeah.  I said it.

So guess what, folks?  If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?

The problem ain't me.

Thank you for saying it...I am doubly fucking sick of this tired old horse being beaten to death several times a week.  I don't understand the obsession on these forums with this topic...