Herman Surkis wrote:
When the escort is better looking then the model.

I've had that happen.  She posed better than the model also.  Sorry, no photos.  The model is still on MM.

MCPHOTO wrote:
Had a photo shoot over the weekend and the model brought a friend. I took photos of both of them. One of them has never modeled before.

so you indulged the fantasies of two people, and for what purpose?

Image K wrote:

They are not considered an escort if they are not there for purposes of security.

It's a commonly accepted definition among photographers. It doesn't surprise me that you have your own definition, and like to play semantics.

:leans forward to hear more "commonly accepted definitions" from Image K:

Since I "missed" that one, I figured you might have more pearls of wisdom for us.

pullins photography wrote:
so you indulged the fantasies of two people, and for what purpose?

It's a mutual choice.  We are all different, and someone like me might choose to shoot the two for fun.  It certainly doesn't hurt anything!  Look at the images I posted on the first page of this thread ...   

Image K wrote:
They are not considered an escort if they are not there for purposes of security.

It's a commonly accepted definition among photographers. It doesn't surprise me that you have your own definition, and like to play semantics.

Absolutely agree with you on this post! 

The way I define "escort" is not going to be exactly the same as everyone else here.  I define "escort" as either a person brought for the purpose of accompaniment for dates or perhaps sexual favors OR as another word for security/body guard.

NO ONE works with me if they are afraid of me.  Likewise, I don't work with people whom I believe may cause me harm.  Simple as that.  There are many people with whom I enjoy the company of, and I will sometimes invite those people.   I also communicate quite well with people, for example in speaking with models, I ask if they would like to invite someone to the shoot for any reason.  We discuss with each other things like if we want a MUA, or an assistant.  If it's a model I've shot before, she or he might perhaps suggest I check out a friend of theirs. 

We discuss whom we'd like to invite.  We may message each other, but we always have at least a couple phone conversations and sometimes even meet in person.  It helps in building long lasting working relationships! 

Many of the shoots I do are one on one, but then I enjoy variety, so I do enjoy having fun with shooting multiple models too.  It totally makes me laugh at how much of a shit fight people get in on the forums over "escorts" or models flaking when I've been doing photography for 30 years now and having a blast without any of the problems others seem to have.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
So, what I'm hearing is that as long as it's an attractive female it's not an escort, it's a "stroke of luck" for the photographer.

Interesting, but not surprising.

It seems as long as it's another set of tits to put in front of the lens a lot of male photographers get all giddy with the idea. Must have something to do with that unrealized menage-a-trois fantasy many have.

When I say "no escorts" I don't qualify it with "but if she's hot bring her along cuz yippee then it's a two-fer."

And isn't it really insulting to the llama that you would want to include her friend in the photos? The llama is there to be the subject (i.e. the center of attention). Isn't it a bit hypocritical to not allow escorts because you don't want that person detracting from the "model/photographer dynamic" and then inviting her friend to hop in the frame?

If you want to shoot the other female, hand her your card and set it up when you're done with the llama you're supposed to be working with.

Photographing the friend is like telling the llama that she's no more special than any other semi-attractive female and that you're not very discerning in who you photograph...as long as it's a "hot" female. (By "you", I mean the plural, not anyone in particular).

Really poor form to me.

If you are being paid to shoot these people, and/or working for a client, then I understand the idea of setting up a later shoot for the third wheel or guest. 

You don't seriously believe that your way is the only way to do things, right?  I know in advance if a llama is going to bring someone.  I've gotten many fantastic pictures in the past with couples and I will continue to do so.  It's my choice, and often times it's because llamas trust me so much that they wish to introduce other llamas to me.  I used to belong to Western portrait and figure group where I would introduce photographers and llamas to each other with them in turn inviting me to their shoots. 

I'm not like you!  I have a very solid social and communications background through out college.  A strength of mine is in being able to improvise under stressful circumstances.  I love challenges, especially when it comes to photography!

MCPHOTO wrote:
Had a photo shoot over the weekend and the model brought a friend. I took photos of both of them. One of them has never modeled before.

A second model isn't an "escort."  I've had some great results when the model brought another girl to model.  Back when I allowed escorts, none of them ever suddenly decided to model for the shoot.

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree then as all you have done is given YOUR definition and assumption of what ALL escorts purposes are. To prove my point if a model said to you... hey can my bf tag along just for fun and to kill time during the day.....how many photographers here would say no I don't allow escorts. Every date a couple ever goes on is a situation where one is being escorted. Thankfully that is not a situation where most would argue the date is on security detail work.

I guess any model that wanted an escort to a shoot just has to lie about the purpose of the person coming. You cant prove that in her mind its for her protection that's an assumption of yours. So in your opinion unless a model actually comes out and says...I am bringing an escort "for my protection" they are A okay by you.    I have a feeling most here would still call the guy an escort.

I get around your definition games.

I don't allow anyone who isn't going to contribute to the shoot, whatever their stated purpose might be.  A second model or qualified MUA, great.  A boyfriend "for my protection", not going to happen.  "My sister to give me confidence."  Also not going to happen.

DarrylPascoePhotography wrote:
You didn't answer my question.....if a model brings a male with her, her bf whatever, and it has nothing to do with being there for her protection, she is perfectly fine with the photographer, feeling safe etc etc, and she says she just wants to bring them as mentioned above, they like to watch or just for fun, because they both enjoy being there all that stuff pick whatever the reason other then for protection of any kind....is it still an llama herder? and would a photographer that had a no llama herder policy allow this person now because as I said...has nothing to do with security reasons for them being there at all. So by your definition....they aren't an llama herder right?

or what if a model wants to bring another female model just to watch her pose so she can help her later whatever, or help her with that on breaks or whatever having nothing to do with protection its for their own personal reasons separate from anything to do with security.... is it still an llama herder?

Whatever the label, they're not going to contribute to the shoot, so they're not welcome.  Unless they pay me, then they are a "client" and can come watch me shoot the model.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:

But what if the friend is hotter than the model you booked? 

I guess that would matter if you booked models based on "hotness"...

Art of the nude wrote:
I get around your definition games.

I don't allow anyone who isn't going to contribute to the shoot, whatever their stated purpose might be.  A second model or qualified MUA, great.  A boyfriend "for my protection", not going to happen.  "My sister to give me confidence."  Also not going to happen.

Absolutely!  I love how you worded that; "I don't allow anyone who isn't going to contribute to the shoot!"  As that is the way I work too! When I shoot, people who are invited are going to be doing something in some manner to contribute to the shoot, OR they are paying for the opportunity to attend.  I sell tickets on www.tickmaster.com !     The photographer and model can both make money.

Art of the nude wrote:

Whatever the label, they're not going to contribute to the shoot, so they're not welcome.  Unless they pay me, then they are a "client" and can come watch me shoot the model.

I'm a freaakin show off!  I love a paying audience! 

Bravo Magic Images wrote:
I had a llama come in with her girlfriend as an escort to one of my shoots. She offered to shoot with me while the llama was putting on her outfit. This girl brought her game on. She gave me better pictuers than the llama i was suppose to shoot. Latter after the shoot I asked if she could come in and do a solo with me. She came in two weeks later and brought even a better game we shoot all day long. Man it was the best shoot ever. Hey Hey for the Escorts.

She was an invited guest ... not an "escort."   I have many llamas ask me before shoots if they can introduce another llama to me.  You have a choice to say "yes or no" to invited guests.  At least that is the way I look at it.  I also talk to everyone as much as I can before the shoot.  I let them know that they are "invited" and what is expected of them.   Referrals are nice!!!

I've had a similar thing happen with booking weddings in the past ... where one of my friends would pull in a group of women who were all getting married the same year and wanted me as their photographer.  However one of those referrals became my worst nightmare of a Bridezilla ... that caused me to no longer do weddings.  In 30 years, I have yet to attempt to shoot with a monster of a llama as bad as that bride.  The mother of the bride is normally the tough one to please, but not in that last case.

Cherrystone wrote:

:leans forward to hear more "commonly accepted definitions" from Image K:

Since I "missed" that one, I figured you might have more pearls of wisdom for us.

Maybe your experience lends a different definition.

I'm interested in yours.

:leans forward, hoping to hear something more useful than the last 30,000 of your posts:

obligatory smiley for the troll post of the day.

Image K wrote:

Maybe your experience lends a different definition.

I'm interested in yours.

:leans forward, hoping to hear something more useful than the last 30,000 of your posts:

obligatory smiley for the troll post of the day.

Thanks for the reply, I'm $10 richer now.

Cherrystone wrote:
Thanks for the reply, I'm $10 richer now.

What?  Someone is making money from "an excort" thread?   I charge more than $10 for someone to watch.  Since Rolling Stones tickets are going for $500 or more, I figure I'm a bargain at $12 a seat.  Seriously, I've got moves like Jagger! 



EDIT!!!   Oh darn!  The model wants to be paid, and so does the MUA!  So I have to raise the ticket price to watch us shoot to $36 a seat.  Now I understand why the Stones charge so much ... they have a lot of old guys to pay!  Those cases of Ensure and Depends aren't free! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:

What?  Someone is making money from "an excort" thread?   I charge more than $10 for someone to watch.  Since Rolling Stones tickets are going for $500 or more, I figure I'm a bargain at $12 a seat.  Seriously, I've got moves like Jagger! 



EDIT!!!   Oh darn!  The model wants to be paid, and so does the MUA!  So I have to raise the ticket price to watch us shoot to $36 a seat.  Now I understand why the Stones charge so much ... they have a lot of old guys to pay!  Those cases of Ensure and Depends aren't free! 

I'm pretty sure that he made the $10 betting that Image K would try to have the last word.

Dan Howell wrote:

I'm pretty sure that he made the $10 betting that Image K would try to have the last word.

You're taking me far too serious.   

KonstantKarma wrote:
I like to force escorts to dig the holes in the woods for both their bodies. They can really save a lot of manual labor!

I might have to rethink my escort policy.
In this case having a boyfriend tag along would be an advantage as long as he wasn't too weedy and nerd like.

Perhaps there is a worthwhile reason to put up with escorts after all!

Kevin Gaskell wrote:
Had that happen too.
Model bought friend, never done a shoot, drop dead gorgeous. Ended up trying to find ways to shoot her more than the model. Some of my best shots, in my own opinion. Some shots on my portfolio of her. Guess which one? I will tell you (Neither are on MM.)

Gee, wonder if the model was offended...

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
So, what I'm hearing is that as long as it's an attractive female it's not an escort, it's a "stroke of luck" for the photographer.

This is some sort of revelation or surprise to you???
I reckon a Savvy model could make a small fortune offering a 2 for one deal with a friend.  They could probably charge Double a single model price and as long as they were shooting Nudes, plenty of shooters wouldn't Notice or care if they did. Plenty of shooters would be stoked that one set of tits was prepared to bare themselves to them, 2 sets would be a wet dream come true.

And isn't it really insulting to the model that you would want to include her friend in the photos? The model is there to be the subject (i.e. the center of attention). Isn't it a bit hypocritical to not allow escorts because you don't want that person detracting from the "model/photographer dynamic" and then inviting her friend to hop in the frame?

Oh come on! This is internet modeling. Far too late to start trying to impose any real world standards or behaviours now.  The whole thing is arse about to reality so you can't have some things one way and others another.  Next You'll be wanting Models to reply to messages and shooters to have actual Photographic skills and valid reasons to shoot nudes!

Photographing the friend is like telling the model that she's no more special than any other semi-attractive female and that you're not very discerning in who you photograph...as long as it's a "hot" female. (By "you", I mean the plural, not anyone in particular).

What exactly in you're opinion makes the majority of models on sites like these any  more special than ANY other female who has not taken 2 min to create a title of "Model" for herself on a non qualifying web site?
I have yet to see any standards imposed by any sites like this that actually require a person to have any modeling knowledge at all before they are allowed to sign up.
I'm not even sure you have to be human to have a folio here. I could be missing out on good income from signing up my beautiful cat.

The requirement to be a net model sure as hell isn't skill nor attractiveness in some cases. It's not like they actually need to do anything in the way of learning  modeling skills or have a single asset that would benefit them as one. Only fair I guess seeing that owning an actual camera isn't a requirement to sign oneself up as a photographer.

I know that some here think that the mere action of filling in a profile makes them something special but fact reflects otherwise. The only difference I have found with net models and girls off the street is that the non models have been 100% reliable, are more enthusiastic and co operative and just far more pleasurable to work with over all.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
So, what I'm hearing is that as long as it's an attractive female it's not an escort, it's a "stroke of luck" for the photographer.

Interesting, but not surprising.

It seems as long as it's another set of tits to put in front of the lens a lot of male photographers get all giddy with the idea. Must have something to do with that unrealized menage-a-trois fantasy many have.

When I say "no escorts" I don't qualify it with "but if she's hot bring her along cuz yippee then it's a two-fer."

I've had good success with 'escorts'. Most simply relax in the other room and read or watch TV. On a couple of occasions, they became temporary models.

Seth was the model's boyfriend.


They've helped with lights, holding things in place, helping with wardrobe, and, yes, even modeling if the shoot would benefit from it.

Cherrystone wrote:

Thanks for the reply, I'm $10 richer now.

And your predictable need to have the last word netted me a free dinner.

another obligatory

Kevin Connery wrote:
...On a couple of occasions, they became temporary models.

Still, it's the luck of the draw when you have a policy that allows escorts.

Kevin Connery wrote:
...Seth was the model's boyfriend...

Both boxes would have been empty.

Kevin Connery wrote:
...They've helped with lights, holding things in place, helping with wardrobe, and, yes, even modeling if the shoot would benefit from it.

I have numerous friends who would gladly do the same, gratis. No thanks.

Z.

Kevin Connery wrote:
...Seth was the model's boyfriend...

Both boxes would have been empty.

+1
Seth would have been carrying the models bags in and leaving.
With or without her.

LC Photography wrote:
I was an llama herder before I started to play around with camera.  I only dropped the girl off and picked her up two hours later.  I hided at a nearby McDonald. I expected the phtographers and staffs to be unfriendly so I did not want to go.

You were a driver, not an llama herder. An llama herder remains on site and, often to the detriment of the shoot, in plain sight.

It's good that you hid.

Z.

Shot By Adam wrote:
If the pimp/jealous boyfriend/jealous husband/clueless BFF wants to drive the model to the shoot and leave only to return when the shoot is over, I have no problem with that. But for all other circumstances regarding "escorts" I have a -zero- tolerance policy. The reason I do not allow "escorts" on my shoots:

- Escorts make shitty sandbags
- Escorts don't hold reflectors well
- Escorts distract the model in more ways than can be counted.
- Escorts need babysitting
- Escorts frequently cause shoots to end too soon because they are bored
- Escorts get jealous and have been known to cause fights on the shoot
- Escorts cause models to be late
- Escorts cause models to flake altogether
- Escorts interrupt the creative process of a shoot
- Escorts steal equipment
- Escorts frequently have no clue about anything that takes place on a shoot but always want input ideas.

My escorts have never done any of those things, I have my own set of rules and don't just bring anyone along.  On a shoot my entire focus is only on the photographer and the job I am doing.  Usually my escort just watches from the sidelines unless the photographer asks him for help with lighting or anything else. 

Please don't put escorts all into one boat, it is overgeneralizing.  Also if I am on my own and I don't feel comfortable it will interfere with my work ending in bad photographs.  I have had some bad experiences and it isn't nice.

AnnieS  wrote:
Please don't put escorts all into one boat, it is overgeneralizing.

And even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while. It's not over generalizing when I have had numerous experiences with "escorts" that have all gone sideways from damaged or stolen equipment, botched shoots, late or AWOL models, the works, and I am certainly not alone on this issue. Not by a LONG shot.

Also if I am on my own and I don't feel comfortable it will interfere with my work ending in bad photographs.  I have had some bad experiences and it isn't nice.

IMO, if you are uncomfortable on a shoot to the point where it would result in a bad shoot, you should pick up your things and leave the set immediately. If you feel the need so strongly that you need to have an escort there, perhaps modeling isn't for you then.