Model
Bubblegum Betty
Posts: 42
Chicago, Illinois, US
Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped..
Photographer
Toto Photo
Posts: 3757
Belmont, California, US
Perhaps you don't have the look they are going for. Last time I was on their site (some time ago now), I thought they preferred very young models for example.
Photographer
DHphotography
Posts: 85
Holmen, Wisconsin, US
I have done a couple of submissions for models to suicide girls. and the last poster is correct, they are looking for younger models.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Alkonost wrote: Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped.. If the quality of your photographs is at the same level as their other models, then I can only assume: 1) You haven't given them enough time to review. 2) You don't have the look or don't fall in the age bracket they prefer. Good luck!
Photographer
JONATHAN RICHARD
Posts: 778
New York, New York, US
Don’t have the look for the editor.....
Photographer
Stockholm
Posts: 109
Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
CHAD ALAN wrote: You don't have the look. +1
Model
Bubblegum Betty
Posts: 42
Chicago, Illinois, US
Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times)
Photographer
REMOVED
Posts: 1546
Atlanta, Georgia, US
If you were to read the unreasonably restrictive SG contract, you might just realize that far worse things could happen than being rejected by them. As for myself, I do not shoot for free for anyone, and there is no such thing as me surrendering my copyright under any circumstances.
Photographer
Toto Photo
Posts: 3757
Belmont, California, US
Alkonost wrote: Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times) ~Sigh~
Photographer
Nature Coast Lightworks
Posts: 1955
Tampa, Florida, US
Alkonost wrote: Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times) No, that's not it. jf
Model
Bubblegum Betty
Posts: 42
Chicago, Illinois, US
Update..they said it was the lighting..not consistent lighting..and the did say on another set I sent in it was too graphic??? Is that because I was showing my vagina in parts or my butt? Are they getting weird now about the suggestion? I know I did not make that a focus or did some weird spreading..hmmm..
Photographer
PM_Photography
Posts: 129
Westwood, Massachusetts, US
It's most certainly none of the explanations you got from suicidegirls. Your answer is already in the responses here.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
I'd suggest posting in critique, where you could also post links to the images that were submitted. And what do I know - I don't submit to things like SG, but it was my understanding that "spread shots"; not so much their thing. (oh and P.S. - if you're linking to images in critique - maybe don't link to those)
Photographer
G Images
Posts: 272
Lexington, Kentucky, US
Toto Photo wrote: ~Sigh~ If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend?
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
G Images wrote: If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend? It seems like you have nothing to say to the OP either. Hmmm. But thanks for bashing someone else. Dear OP Obviously this has been a dream of yours. I hope you will move this over to the critique section so you can get advise on the actual work. I will only state that you should hire a strong photographer in the nude pin up style of SG. That may be your best chance. Good luck and I hope it works for you
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Alkonost wrote: Update..they said it was the lighting..not consistent lighting..and the did say on another set I sent in it was too graphic??? Is that because I was showing my vagina in parts or my butt? Are they getting weird now about the suggestion? I know I did not make that a focus or did some weird spreading..hmmm.. What did the rules say?
Wardrobe Stylist
Alannah The Stylist
Posts: 1550
Los Angeles, California, US
Alkonost wrote: Update..they said it was the lighting..not consistent lighting..and the did say on another set I sent in it was too graphic??? Is that because I was showing my vagina in parts or my butt? Are they getting weird now about the suggestion? I know I did not make that a focus or did some weird spreading..hmmm.. Yeah SG isn't too fond of the spread shots.It's in the rules.
Photographer
SuperWink
Posts: 188
Decatur, Georgia, US
Alkonost wrote: Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped.. Look. Model Mayhem is a weird place. Because one hand we are judging images and sometimes people aesthetically, and on the other hand trying to be professional and courteous in doing such. Here's what I think. You're barking up the wrong tree. In the time it's taken you to submit multiple times and try to bend to their criticism of how you should appear so that they can make a buck off of you, you could have found a place that loves you just the way you are. That's a little cheesy, but I think you get the drift. Go find some new trees!
Model
Bubblegum Betty
Posts: 42
Chicago, Illinois, US
Well the problem is the rules are so vague..like what is considered a spread shot? Obviously if I have my legs spread open or have a close up is guess vaginally that is but that is not the case, so I'm not sure what they consider spread..I was sort of hoping that people that have experience with this site would understand..thanks for all the comments and I will be posting some pictures to get more specific ideas..
Model
Valhallas_Angel
Posts: 46
Tucson, Arizona, US
Fotopia wrote: If you were to read the unreasonably restrictive SG contract, you might just realize that far worse things could happen than being rejected by them. +1
Photographer
Francisco Castro
Posts: 2630
Cincinnati, Ohio, US
I looked at your port, and looked at SG's website, and to be blunt, you don't have the SG look and you're older that the girls that are on there. And those that are of your age are built like porn stars. SG is there to make money. And the bottom line is they don't feel you will generate sales for them, they are not going to invest in your sets.
Photographer
Toto Photo
Posts: 3757
Belmont, California, US
G Images wrote: If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend? Right you are. Sorry for that post everyone.
Model
AnnAdB
Posts: 202
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Like what was said; Why are you trying só hard to get into SG? I would just say; look for something else that fits you better in stead of constantly getting frustrated over this just because you had in mind that you want to be on SG?
Model
Samantha Scarlette
Posts: 456
New York, New York, US
The average suicide girl is or appears to be about 18 to 25. They also tend to be a lot more toned than you are and have firmer chests, even the plus sized. If you're hellbent on submitting to them again, i'd say spend a month or too toning up your body, hire a professional makeup artist that can do makeup to make you look a bit younger.. And also hire a better photographer if SG's are complaining about bad lighting. Also try doing an out door or natural light photoshoot. I looked into SG's a few years ago, got accepted as a model, and then decided against ever shooting any sets, because no way in hell was I going to have nudes up without being paid/getting the actual title of suicide girl…But of the example sets I remember from their web site, most of them where shot in natural lighting with a regular HD type focus. Kind of the opposite on the indoor staged lighting soft lens Playboy style, which seems to be more prevalent in your portfolio (as far as lighting concepts).
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
I took a look at the SG website. - They're all young girls - The lighting is generally very poor - Didn't intensely dig in - but I don't think they're going for explicit porn. I definitely get the impression that the most amateurish MM photographer could get their pictures on this site, with a cute, young, tattoo'd girl. Photographic skill does not seem to be one of their criteria.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Samantha Scarlette wrote: The average suicide girl is or appears to be about 18 to 25. They also tend to be a lot more toned than you are and have firmer chests, even the plus sized. If you're hellbent on submitting to them again, i'd say spend a month or too toning up your body, hire a professional makeup artist that can do makeup to make you look a bit younger.. And also hire a better photographer if SG's are complaining about bad lighting. Also try doing an out door or natural light photoshoot. I looked into SG's a few years ago, got accepted as a model, and then decided against ever shooting any sets, because no way in hell was I going to have nudes up without being paid/getting the actual title of suicide girl…But of the example sets I remember from their web site, most of them where shot in natural lighting with a regular HD type focus. Kind of the opposite on the indoor staged lighting soft lens Playboy style, which seems to be more prevalent in your portfolio (as far as lighting concepts). This may be a little painful to hear, but she's right. Suicide girls isn't what they once were, but they know what their audience wants and pays for. If you're not it, then you're not it. Being accepted as a model means what?? It means they'll accept a set or sets from you. That's pretty much anyone lately. The set would have to be exceptional in some way for them to accept and use, whether that be the model, the location, your artwork, your mods, the photography, or something else that they can sell. If you don't have any of these exceptional things, they'll simply move on to the next set that does. It really is as simple as that.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Whatever SG said this is what they actually meant: Don't call us, we'll call you. Studio36
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
Alkonost wrote: Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped.. Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
studio36uk wrote: Whatever SG said this is what they actually meant: Don't call us, we'll call you. Studio36 Now you've got that old Sugarloaf tune going through me head
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2350
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Alkonost wrote: Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times) You don't have the look they want.
Model
Cervezax
Posts: 152
Atlanta, Georgia, US
rp_photo wrote: Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense. Just curious, why is their reputation terrible?
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
rp_photo wrote: Now you've got that old Sugarloaf tune going through me head So not Green Eyed Lady, I guess...not familiar with other tunes.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Cervezax wrote: rp_photo wrote: Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense. Just curious, why is their reputation terrible? As for models 1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history. BUT 2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them. Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either. That's SG in a nutshell. Studio36
Photographer
J Haggerty
Posts: 1315
Augusta, Georgia, US
OP: If you would like to receive honest feedback about WHY they might not be accepted or why SG responded in such a manner, pm me the set. You could post in the Critiques forum but that might bleed into critiquing the photographer who didn't ask for one.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
studio36uk wrote: As for models 1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history. BUT 2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them. Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either. That's SG in a nutshell. Studio36 So we have no misunderstandings, Studio36 doesn't like SG. I can't say that I blame him. I just don't want misunderstandings on his true feelings. He doesn't like them.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I think the answer lies in their name, its "Suicide Girls" not "Suicide Women" as others have pointed out. But that's just my opinion
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
GPS Studio Services wrote: studio36uk wrote: As for models 1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history. BUT 2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them. Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either. That's SG in a nutshell. Studio36 So we have no misunderstandings, Studio36 doesn't like SG. I can't say that I blame him. I just don't want misunderstandings on his true feelings. He doesn't like them. No I do not, but nothing said above is misstating the position either. As a business their business practices leave me cold. But I can also name other businesses that I would argue equally that someone should not get involved with as well. Studio36
Photographer
sjx
Posts: 969
Boston, Massachusetts, US
studio36uk wrote: Cervezax wrote: rp_photo wrote: Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense. Just curious, why is their reputation terrible? As for models 1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history. BUT 2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them. Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either. That's SG in a nutshell. edit: quote button not working. Studio36 Thank you. You just reminded me why I quit on suicide girls years ago OP: Like they said, don't sweat the suicide girl submissions, better off going on to bigger and better anyway!
Model
AnnAdB
Posts: 202
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
I'm just wondering this: Why would you want to be on this site? What I see (can't see everything) is that a lot of pictures are of horrible quality. Why would you want to be associated with this?
Model
AinslieAdams
Posts: 3
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I submitted 2 sets to SG back in 2010 that weren't purchased. After a year or so of them sitting there the photographer and I had a discussion and we took them down and put the photographer's watermark on them (rather than the SG logo) so we could both use the photos and it wasn't a total waste of our time. Might be something to think about doing if yours have been sitting in MR for a while x (And just double checked the contract and it says "This contract can be terminated if the set is not accepted as the “Set of the Day” AND the model removes the set from SuicideGirls.com. Once the photos are removed from SuicideGirls.com, we no longer retain the copyright or claim to own the images.")
|