Ken Bufton wrote:
I've always thought that certain photographers who have high, over-inflated opinions of themselves and their abilities are the ones who constantly drone on about 'GWC'. It's their way of saying "Hey look at me I'm such a cool, hot-shot photographer that everyone else is beneath me". If a model looks at a photographer's portfolio and decides that he/she wants to work with that particular photographer (whatever their ability/style etc) then that's the end of the story!

Another excellent reply to a really stupid post!

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers

Oh, like a chupacabra, or the Loch Ness monster?  I'll beware of these nasty creatures!

MoRina wrote:
These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions.

Oh, if that's what passes for evil these days then I'm in!  Where do I sign up?

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

woah. this actually blew my mind. i never thought of it like this.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

The OP's post was about GWC's. The implication behind the title of GWC is one of sexual motivation.

The OP states that newbe models with bad pictures in their port yet want to charge photographers for shooting nudes is asking to work and be approached by GWCs.

I never took GWC to mean bad photographer that jack off to their own bad pictures..... Ewe.........

I don't think the connotation is not a good one but never thought it was strictly sexual.  My bad.

BTW The great German photographer Helmut Newton when asked about his photography said he was a pornographer (GWC?)

Do you think Helmut Newton was.

I don't agree with the OP I think he is silly and I don't really understand his position or that it makes a bit of difference.  IMHO

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

Very well stated.

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

Excellent post!

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

Ha, that's why I love you

Antediluvian Design wrote:
For me? DGWC+3 Drunk Guy with Camera + 3 vivitar ghetto strobes. I don't really shoot nudes. Topless implied nipple slips are my limit. I don't want to explain to mom I have taken a career in pornography. She has a bad heart.

Posting "topless implied nipple slips" will offend a lot more models than posting full nudes shot with the model's consent.  And, hard as it may be to understand, nudity and pornography are different things.  Neither is an essential part of the other.

Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
So...if one is male and happens to own a camera of any sort, the one is a guy with a camera, not so?

You are trying to make the initials GWC mean something bad and [b]I won't let you.[/b]

This FAQ entry has been up since around the time the site started.

GWC is an acronym for "Guy With Camera." It's a derogatory term for an amateur photographer. And it has taken the intraweb by storm thanks to MM. It usually implies that said guy is only interested in photography in order to get hot ladies to get nekkid for him.

GWC implies much more about motivation and behavior than skill level.

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

See above. None of the other definitions/usages I've run across said anything about payment.

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

Art of the nude wrote:

Posting "topless implied nipple slips" will offend a lot more models than posting full nudes shot with the model's consent.  And, hard as it may be to understand, nudity and pornography are different things.  Neither is an essential part of the other.

It is intentional and consentual nipple slippage which I feel are much sexier than just having it all hang out there. There is nothing like the viewer being teased. It leaves them wanting more which they never get. They are the photos I personally like the most. Not all will agree but that's just me.

Antediluvian Design wrote:

It is intentional and consentual nipple slippage which I feel are much sexier than just having it all hang out there. There is nothing like the viewer being teased. It leaves them wanting more which they never get. They are the photos I personally like the most. Not all will agree but that's just me.

Only if your intention is purely to create images that titilate.

Image Magik wrote:
This post is primarily for newbie models with a few pictures in their port of not very good quality that just started modeling a month ago and want to charge "photographers" to shoot them nude to make a quick buck.
Whether you know it or not your port says GWC's Wanted.

MoRina wrote:
These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil.

Personally I love GWCs!

Their money makes it possible for models to afford to shoot trade with me.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

That Italian Guy wrote:

Personally I love GWCs!

Their money makes it possible for models to afford to shoot trade with me.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1,000,000 ♡

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Only if your intention is purely to create images that titilate.

Exactly my intention.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Only if your intention is purely to create images that titillate.

Antediluvian Design wrote:
Exactly my intention.

Antediluvian Design wrote:
I don't want to explain to mom I have taken a career in pornography. She has a bad heart.

K.

Art Silva Photography wrote:

Where in the world did you guys get that picture of ME??? !!!! 

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Only if your intention is purely to create images that titillate.

Antediluvian Design wrote:
Exactly my intention.

K.

dont be a troll nip slips arent porn and neither is my work...sheesh how insulting

Antediluvian Design wrote:
dont be a troll nip slips arent porn and neither is my work...sheesh how insulting

But apparently fully nude work inherently is- at least according to you.

Antediluvian Design wrote:
dont be a troll nip slips arent porn and neither is my work...sheesh how insulting

Personally I have a much higher opinion of people that shoot porn then people who shoot and post nipple slips. At least they're honest about what they're shooting.

Mcary wrote:

Personally I have a much higher opinion of people that shoot porn then people who shoot and post nipple slips. At least they're honest about what they're shooting.

Haha...really. You would rather see your daughter in a 10 dude gang bang then a nip slip in Harpers? Wow you two sound like uh....trolling.

MoRina wrote:
The GWC is mythical creature, talked about by photographers who, although they spend thousands of dollars for gear, refuse to pay models for their time, citing their talent, experience or intention to publish a picture.

These photographers have convinced models that this mythical creature exists and is evil. They speak about the legend of the evil GWC who pays models and how he must have evil intentions. They deny the GWC has legitimate intentions in order that models shun them in fear. They attempt to get models to equate a photographer who offers money to shoot with a person (the “GWC”) who has bad intentions or is perverse.

Even models now use the term GWC, showing they have been brainwashed to believe this legend. They buy into the concept that they if they accept money from a photographer with questionable skill, that they must have done something to be ashamed of, or must proudly wave the “I got paid” banner to justify it.

Well Said

Bella Photoshoot wrote:

Where in the world did you guys get that picture of ME??? !!!! 

No one told you? the cover of GWC Monthly of course!  Congrats 

Antediluvian Design wrote:
Haha...really. You would rather see your daughter in a 10 dude gang bang then a nip slip in Harpers? Wow you two sound like uh....trolling.

First of all, female porn stars are not 'your daughter'. Women who chose to do porn are their own person and as long as it's being done legally are doing so out of their own free will. Please have some respect for the bodily autonomy of porn stars.

Secondly, what you've been saying in this thread is that you don't shoot 'porn' (more specifically, that you don't shoot full nudes because they are inherently pornographic), but that the sole purpose of your photography is to inspire arousal in the viewer. Unless I'm mistaken, the ultimate goal of pornography is to inspire arousal in the viewer.

So, can you see now why people are having problems with what you're saying?

Antediluvian Design wrote:

Haha...really. You would rather see your daughter in a 10 dude gang bang then a nip slip in Harpers? Wow you two sound like uh....trolling.

A nip slip in Harpers?  I bet you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

Oh no I've been accused of trolling oh dear what shall I ever do

Mcary wrote:
A nip slip in Harpers?  I bet you also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy

Oh no I've been accused of trolling oh dear what shall I ever do

Plus to anyone who thinks haphazardly exposed nipples in fashion magazines are a 'slip' - aahh - they're not - it's intentional from the whole team including the model.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
First of all, female porn stars are not 'your daughter'. Women who chose to do porn are their own person and as long as it's being done legally are doing so out of their own free will. Please have some respect for the bodily autonomy of porn stars.

Secondly, what you've been saying in this thread is that you don't shoot 'porn' (more specifically, that you don't shoot full nudes because they are inherently pornographic), but that the sole purpose of your photography is to inspire arousal in the viewer. Unless I'm mistaken, the ultimate goal of pornography is to inspire arousal in the viewer.

So, can you see now why people are having problems with what you're saying?

I don't have daughters and yes they are their own people. Never said nudes are pornographic. That is what YOU read into my post. Now please answer the question. That's right you can't because you are a troll. And as a troll, you live under a bridge and snipe at others.

Image Magik wrote:
This post is primarily for newbie models with a few pictures in their port of not very good quality that just started modeling a month ago and want to charge "photographers" to shoot them nude to make a quick buck.
Whether you know it or not your port says GWC's Wanted.

Luckily for you the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was coined before photographers were invented.

I'm sure William Congreve meant "Photographers", but the word wasn't around back then!

Antediluvian Design wrote:

I don't have daughters and yes they are their own people. Never said nudes are pornographic. That is what YOU read into my post. Now please answer the question.

Well I'm 21 and won't be having any children for a looooooooooooooooooong time if ever. However, if I had a child who chose to do porn as an adult with all of the legal clearances I would absolutely respect his/her choice, both out of respect for his/her bodily autonomy and as someone who has dabbled in adult and erotic work myself. I may chose to not look at it, but I often chose to not look at all kinds of porn anyway. I honestly don't care what another adult does as long as it's consensual activity.

Here is what you said:
"For me? DGWC+3 Drunk Guy with Camera + 3 vivitar ghetto strobes. I don't really shoot nudes. Topless implied nipple slips are my limit. I don't want to explain to mom I have taken a career in pornography. She has a bad heart."

So if you shot nudes that would be a career in pornography? That sure as hell is what it sounds like your saying.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Well I'm 21 and won't be having any children for a looooooooooooooooooong time if ever. However, if I had a child who chose to do porn as an adult with all of the legal clearances I would absolutely respect his/her choice, both out of respect for his/her bodily autonomy and as someone who has dabbled in adult and erotic work myself. I may chose to not look at it, but I often chose to not look at all kinds of porn anyway. I honestly don't care what another adult does as long as it's consensual activity.

Here is what you said:
"For me? DGWC+3 Drunk Guy with Camera + 3 vivitar ghetto strobes. I don't really shoot nudes. Topless implied nipple slips are my limit. I don't want to explain to mom I have taken a career in pornography. She has a bad heart."

So if you shot nudes that would be a career in pornography? That sure as hell is what it sounds like your saying.

That's right it sounded like what I said but not what I said. What I get out of it is my Mom would consider it to be pornographic. So go on your little troll way. Troll. And congratulations to being a mom who wants their daughter to have a career in pornography rather than a nip slip in Harpers.

Antediluvian Design wrote:

That's right it sounded like what I said but not what I said. What I get out of it is my Mom would consider it to be pornographic. So go on your little troll way. Troll.

And your mom doesn't consider photos with little nudity whose sole intention it is to inspire sexual arousal as pornographic?

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

And your mom doesn't consider photos with little nudity whose sole intention it is to inspire sexual arousal as pornographic?

Why don't you go ask her.

Image Magik wrote:
This post is primarily for newbie models with a few pictures in their port of not very good quality that just started modeling a month ago and want to charge "photographers" to shoot them nude to make a quick buck.
Whether you know it or not your port says GWC's Wanted.

Really op...your post is as classless as the image above.

Wow. And who are you to sit there and judge whose port says GWC anyhow?

Welcome to the forum buttercup...this could get ugly for you!

Antediluvian Design wrote:
For me? DGWC+3 Drunk Guy with Camera + 3 vivitar ghetto strobes. I don't really shoot nudes. Topless implied nipple slips are my limit. I don't want to explain to mom I have taken a career in pornography. She has a bad heart.

What do nudes have to do with pornography? Unless the model is sucking cock or getting fucked (or a number of sexually deviant acts) it isn't porn. And if your mother considers it to be porn then that is her views. NOT the rest of the population in the art world (those who buy and create).

I have an aunt who has asked me not to shoot "naked people because god wouldn't be happy"...but you know what...I still shoot nudes simply because I like it and yes there is art in nudes.

So try getting off your high horse here and breathe the same air as the rest of us.

Antediluvian Design wrote:
That's right it sounded like what I said but not what I said. What I get out of it is my Mom would consider it to be pornographic. So go on your little troll way. Troll. And congratulations to being a mom who wants their daughter to have a career in pornography rather than a nip slip in Harpers.

Wow. Now you are truly insulting and being wrong on so many levels here.

First off, that young lady (Elizabeta Rosandic )who responded wasn't trolling. Second off, who the hell are you to say "congratulations to being a mom who wants their daughter to have a career in pornography rather than a nip slip in Harpers." to her anyhow? Really?

You have the audacity to march up in here and insult her like this when she was responding to you in a non trolling, non offensive manner?

For your information, she got the same impression as I did from you initial post about nudes being pornography.

If I were you, I would apologize to her. She didn't deserve that hot mess from you.