Model
Miss 5 11
Posts: 71
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
The cleft of the labia majora, which runs up to the pubic bone, was never seen in 70s Art Nude work covered by hair as it was. Now this is clearly visible and seeing it is standard. Extend the logic of this display and we have the more revealing Art Nude poses of today.
Models have complied with this push to reveal more by removing their pubic hair.
Will they also comply with further demands?
And still call it Art Nude?
Photographer
devpics
Posts: 839
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
This is not a simple yes/no question, there is some very high class photo art by internationally renowned photographers of a very erotic nature, really you should do what you think is valid as an artist and a Woman and keep pushing boundaries.
Photographer
WolfMan
Posts: 50
Sacramento, California, US
511:
YOU are the final judge in what is and what isn't proper in your work. Never mind those who seem to be ok with guns, kids getting shot, you name it, if it's negative, it can be on TV, seen anywhere; and in parts of the US, that is acceptable to their "sensibility"---but OMG, if you let your nipples or lady bits show?? They go batsh*t crazy; completely nuts and want to HANG the model who would DARE to show her body......it is up to YOU and you alone to decide what constitutes a pose, and if open leg is what you want to do, then DO IT!!!!
I think that you're on the right track in your modeling, and hope you keep it up!!
Photographer
PhotoLoveXO
Posts: 95
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
If you are going to charge for your services charge what you think you are worth and then charge even more. The market will let you know what its willing to pay. It never looks good trying to be cheaper then someone else. When the value you provide exceeds the price you charge they will work with you.
Like a lot of other people said what is pornography is different for everyone. If you don't want you photos to look like porn try not to have photos taken that look like they belong on a porn site or in a porn magazine.
There have been plenty of photos with spread legs in galleries as well as in porn magazines.
Model
Jen B
Posts: 4474
Phoenix, Arizona, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
This is not a marketing stunt by me.
Apart from Rose and Caitin model responses to this post have been hostile.
On the other hand responses from photographers have been thoughtful and helped me think through this issue. Miss 5 11,
We see what we are filtered to see. I am surprised that you read every models reply but for two as hostile.
Mine was not sent in a hostile intent or manner at all.
Jen
edit: If you feel it is empowering you to expose your genitalia then do what you will and know that you aren't alone and that there are likely others who feel a power in revealing this. I am not one of them and find nothing in exposed vulva, (or exposed male genitalia) as something that I want to see further. Then again, I am a nurse and see it as just a 'part' and not the 'person'
I'd rather see a picture that isn't trying to be punching me in my eyes, that is all, its a preference. It isn't a sense of morality or right or wrong but, I don't look at a picture beyond a second once the genitalia is obviously poking out.
If you feel it is art and is a thrill for you then why you want to charge more for it doesn't necessarily make sense to me but, neither does art and exposed genitalia as the focus of the shot either.
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9225
Brooklyn, New York, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
The cleft of the labia majora, which runs up to the pubic bone, was never seen in 70s Art Nude work covered by hair as it was. Now this is clearly visible and seeing it is standard. Extend the logic of this display and we have the more revealing Art Nude poses of today.
Models have complied with this push to reveal more by removing their pubic hair.
Will they also comply with further demands?
And still call it Art Nude? I actually prefer models with pubic hair for that reason, it hides more when shooting full frontal nudes. But these days it is somewhat rare to find a model who is not clean shaven so it is what it is. I work with both because to me, it is the intent of the photo, not what is displayed.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Does open leg = Pornography? Depends on the lighting. 
Model
IDiivil
Posts: 4615
Los Angeles, California, US
"Art nude or pornography?" is an argument for the ages.
IMO, it all depends on your intent. If you are doing spread shots to titillate your audience, I would argue that would fall more along the lines of pornography. If you are shooting spread shots to simply acknowledge and utilize that part of your nature as a woman (as if it were no different than an arm or leg), then perhaps it can be argued as an art nude. If, however, you are doing spread shots to both titillate and self-acknowledge, the lighting, setting, and context will probably be the deciding factor on whether the audience interprets it more as pornographic or artistic.
Again, argument for the ages. It can go on forever. We'd have to define who views what as art, if there is a possibility for porn and art to be equals in one image, etc etc etc...
Personally, almost all open leg shots translate as more pornographic. Again, that is my personal view. Perhaps that is my American upbringing sexualizing that body part, but it is what it is. Save for very very very very very very few occasions (paintings, specific photographers, sculptures, etc), I feel that showcasing that part of the body takes away from the rest of the image and becomes a major distraction for the viewer. I feel this both with male and female genitalia in art.
Edit: I'm sorry if this is a jumble. I'm going on like 18 hours of airport nightmare.
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9225
Brooklyn, New York, US
Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Does open leg = Pornography?
Depends on the lighting. I saw this quote once..
Standard lighting:
Key light
Fill light
Hair light
Porn lighting:
Key light
Fill light
Crotch light
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9225
Brooklyn, New York, US
IDiivil wrote:
"Art nude or pornography?" is an argument for the ages.
IMO, it all depends on your intent. If you are doing spread shots to titillate your audience, I would argue that would fall more along the lines of pornography. If you are shooting spread shots to simply acknowledge and utilize that part of your nature as a woman (as if it were no different than an arm or leg), then perhaps it can be argued as an art nude. If, however, you are doing spread shots to both titillate and self-acknowledge, the lighting, setting, and context will probably be the deciding factor on whether the audience interprets it more as pornographic or artistic.
Again, argument for the ages. It can go on forever. We'd have to define who views what as art, if there is a possibility for porn and art to be equals in one image, etc etc etc...
Personally, almost all open leg shots translate as more pornographic. Again, that is my personal view. Perhaps that is my American upbringing sexualizing that body part, but it is what it is. Save for very very very very very very few occasions (paintings, specific photographers, sculptures, etc), I feel that showcasing that part of the body takes away from the rest of the image and becomes a major distraction for the viewer. I feel this both with male and female genitalia in art. I totally agree. I never ask models to shoot open leg, they do it because they want to. If a model is just laying there with her legs open smiling at the camera, that is something I don't want to shoot. Now if the model is showing emotions and her legs happen to be open, now that says more to me than just an open leg shot.
While you can argue that both are gratuitous displays of female genitalia, for me, it is always about intent. The first type says nothing except a model has her legs open, the second says more than just "look at my girly bits".
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 2328
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
Is what we do in our art nude work pornography? What is wrong with porn? Do other models feel this pressure to perform hotter during shoots? Should we charge more?
Leading on from my first ever forum post 'Open leg' I can't help but ask these questions. In that post I related experiencing that moment when an art nude photographer asked:
'Could you open your legs please' ?
I'm uninhibited and did as requested and felt no shame. In fact I felt a little turned on by the idea of this display. It wasn't only sexy feelings it gave me either, it was wonder. I wanted to show and celebrate an example of what is really a miracle of biological design. The gates through which every living person passes with the exception of those who were 'from their mother's womb untimely ripped'.The focus point of male sexual feelings, with the exception of gay men and those with a fetish.
MM puts a limit on what can be shown in our portfolios but for girls in the field it falls to us to uphold this limit. We are in the firing line. 'Shoot' is such an appropriate word.
I love doing Art nude and will push past the envelope of that category by opening my legs but remain unsure how I feel about hotter poses being distributed around the internet and what price I should ask for this.
I'm just a beginner feeling my way here and need help from other models and photographers of the nude to work through this. To understand the model's feelings of shame and guilt or liberation and to help me to explore how far I should go. What are the dangers? What are the rewards?
Pornography : Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. Well, here in the US, the courts use a different definition of the word pornography, which is sexually explicit work. Open legs to see your vagina by itself is not considered porn. But if you add a sex toy, position your fingers as if you were masturbating, or something along those lines, then yes, that would be pornography. But just posing nude and seeing your vagina is not normally considered porn. I apologize if my description of some things contained here are offensive to any, it is not my intent to offend, just to describe as coldly as possible what is normally considered porn.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Jeff Fiore wrote:
I saw this quote once..
Standard lighting:
Key light
Fill light
Hair light
Porn lighting:
Key light
Fill light
Crotch light
exactly!
Photographer
Moodscapes
Posts: 422
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
From your post it seems to me like there are 2 separate issues:
1. Your comfort with doing open-leg.
2. Whether open-leg is always porn or can be art.
Only you can answer 1 - personally if you're comfortable with it, and even proud of doing it for the reasons you've outlined then good luck to you. There are certainly any number of photographers who will pay good money for a model who is and so win/win all round.
As for 2, personally I think the porn/art divide is subjective and arbitrary and essentially irrelevant. For me the defining question is does a shot make me look at it for me than 5 seconds? If it does then whether it's got open or closed leg or is high fashion or shows explicit sexual activity is neither here nor there. But it has to be a truly exceptional shot to get more than 2 seconds let alone 5+.
99% of open-leg shots I personally find just boring, as I would the equivalent penis shots of guys. But then 99% of all shots I find boring so it's no different - just lazy uninspired photography mostly, irrespective of how beautiful the model is.
Some people look at my work and go "art". Some people look at it and go "porn" - I couldn't care less. But if they look at my work and go "boring" - that's when I feel I've failed.
Photographer
Oubliette Media
Posts: 146
RESEDA, California, US
Open legs or not, it is in the eye of the beholder. While someone may look at a naked body in any form as pornographic, someone else may look at a naked body as beautiful.
As a photographer, it's the intent of the photo and the concept I am trying to get to show in the photo. It may be sexy to artistic to erotic. Also understanding that not everyone will look at it the same way I do.
Everyone will always have their own opinion and that will depend on the way they were raised to society, so I would say do what you feel comfortable with. All models and photographers have their limits. So the question to ask yourself is "what is yours"?
Photographer
Jeff Fiore
Posts: 9225
Brooklyn, New York, US
Anderson wrote:
Open legs or not, it is in the eye of the beholder. While someone may look at a naked body in any form as pornographic, someone else may look at a naked body as beautiful.
As a photographer, it's the intent of the photo and the concept I am trying to get to show in the photo. It may be sexy to artistic to erotic. Also understanding that not everyone will look at it the same way I do.
Everyone will always have their own opinion and that will depend on the way they were raised to society, so I would say do what you feel comfortable with. All models and photographers have their limits. So the question to ask yourself is "what is yours"? 
Photographer
howard r
Posts: 527
Los Angeles, California, US
it’s definitely not impossible to create something artistic with spread legs, it’s just a lot more difficult. furthermore - if the photographer misses the mark, it’s a lot easier for it to veer off into tacky/sleazy territory.
best advice: only explore those poses with a photographer whose taste and judgment is impeccable.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
The cleft of the labia majora, which runs up to the pubic bone, was never seen in 70s Art Nude work covered by hair as it was. Now this is clearly visible and seeing it is standard. Extend the logic of this display and we have the more revealing Art Nude poses of today.
Models have complied with this push to reveal more by removing their pubic hair.
Will they also comply with further demands?
And still call it Art Nude? I think even graphic shots of couples having sex can be art nude. I have shot it and have numerous people comment that they think it is very striking, artistic, and beautiful. It is, though, difficult to accomplish without it coming off as porn, and there are some people who would see it as porn while others would see it as art, as many have mentioned already.
I have shot open leg as well as art nude, and have shot close ups of a woman's genitals in what i considered to be a very fine art manner. It had to be removed due to the change in MM rules a few years back, but even the Mod commented that is a great photo and very beautiful.
howard r wrote:
it’s definitely not impossible to create something artistic with spread legs, it’s just a lot more difficult. furthermore - if the photographer misses the mark, it’s a lot easier for it to veer off into tacky/sleazy territory.
best advice: only explore those poses with a photographer whose taste and judgment is impeccable. Absolutely agree.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Ken Warren Photography wrote:
While I have never used the term to a model's face, I have used it. Most recently, in describing a model who had a rate for fully clothed, and a (higher) rate for lingerie, and a (higher) rate for topless, and a (higher) rate for implied, and a (higher) rate for full nudes, and ...
You get the picture, I'm sure. Stripper rates. I have had conversations with established models about this in the past. One was with a very busy and successful model, who works constantly both thru her agency and thru MM as freelance. She used to be very active on the Forums and was and still is highly respected.
When I asked her if she charges more for nude work, she laughed and basically said she's not a stripper. She said she charges to model - period. Her rates are her rates no matter what the job is or how much or little clothes she is wearing.
I have actually had other models use the term "stripper rates" as well.
Model
Model MoRina
Posts: 6640
MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica
I call these art nude, and you can see from the lists and comments that many people agree. https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/13224334 https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21919204 Although I am comfortable posing this way, I disagree that posing open leg is just showing another body part. If that was true, everyone who poses nude would pose open-leg. It takes guts and a willingness to deal with the obvious and not-so-obvious repercussions. Not everyone is able to be completely vulnerable in front of the camera in these days of easy widespread digital distribution. There is nothing wrong with models who choose not to pose this way. There is nothing wrong with models who do choose to pose this way. There is nothing wrong with posing this way only for certain photographers of the model's choosing. There is nothing wrong with the model choosing to charge higher rates for this type of posing. There is nothing wrong with the model charging her regular rates for this type of posing (or not charging at all.)
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
The cleft of the labia majora, which runs up to the pubic bone, was never seen in 70s Art Nude work covered by hair as it was. Now this is clearly visible and seeing it is standard. Extend the logic of this display and we have the more revealing Art Nude poses of today.
Models have complied with this push to reveal more by removing their pubic hair.
Will they also comply with further demands?
And still call it Art Nude? I only remove my pubic hair if I work with someone who requests it removed, which happens from time to time.
However, like MANY people, I just don't have much body hair. I get like three hairs under each armpit, some blond fluff on my legs, and have never really had a "full" bush, just because it doesn't grow in all the way. Even if I do not groom my pubic hair at all, my genitals are pretty obviously visible in images that are full frontal in nature. I have to really drop one leg over, or assume an exaggerated stance sometimes to fully conceal my labia. That is compounded by the fact that some women's genitals (including my own) are just more frontally visible, because we are all built differently.
The fact that the details of my crotch tend to show naturally, due to not having much pubic hair and the overall shape of my body, is not something within my control and I don't think that it turns "art" nudes instantly into "erotic" work simply because you can see more privates on some female bodies, than on others.
Sure, you can shave/wax to intentionally make that stuff more visible, but it's not really a choice for everyone. Some people you can just see more, because of uncontrollable factors.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
I don't worry about open leg. I have never asked a model to pose this way. If a model chooses to do it I photograph it.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Koryn wrote:
Well, you just created an excellent self-marketing thread. And there is absolutely no problem with being creative with marketing.
As a matter of fact posting at all is about marketing on MM. Otherwise why post at all.
I mean its MM cmon. MM is a not fun forum to post on. There is always people ready to rip you for trying to have fun on it.
I have fun with the flirty threads. So what would that say about me? even though I'm not looking for any kind of sexual activity I still like to flirt. Its fun.
Oh and I don't like pubic hair. I only grow it for requests other than that I rather not have hair anywhere other than my head. Once in a while a little run way is OK. I once had the run way at the wrong angle and place just to see if the pilot would miss it and crash his plane.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I don't worry about open leg. I have never asked a model to pose this way. If a model chooses to do it I photograph it. Why? Is it kind of a Basic Instinct?
edited latter: Whatsamatter Jerr? Cant have a quick enough comeback?
PS. In my port is a self portrait I did in the snow this last winter and for some reason I thought about you and your trip to Arizona.
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
I only grow it for requests other than that I rather not have hair anywhere other than my head. Once in a while a little run way is OK. I once had the run way at the wrong angle and place just to see if the pilot would miss it and crash his plane. Erotica at its best. Most pilots use their tongue to do the landing. I am just sayin' 
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
If a photographer can master light, they can take the exact pose and make it art or porn.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, US
Connor Photography wrote:
Erotica at its best. Most pilots use their tongue to do the landing. I am just sayin' That would make a very strange looking POV.
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
I have had conversations with established models about this in the past. One was with a very busy and successful model, who works constantly both thru her agency and thru MM as freelance. She used to be very active on the Forums and was and still is highly respected.
When I asked her if she charges more for nude work, she laughed and basically said she's not a stripper. She said she charges to model - period. Her rates are her rates no matter what the job is or how much or little clothes she is wearing.
I have actually had other models use the term "stripper rates" as well. I see nothing wrong with a model having separate rates for various levels of nudity...that's smart business. Why give it away if this is your income.
For those working a 9-5 job, do you get paid more for working holidays?
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Caitin Bre wrote:
Why? Is it kind of a Basic Instinct?
edited latter: Whatsamatter Jerr? Cant have a quick enough comeback?
PS. In my port is a self portrait I did in the snow this last winter and for some reason I thought about you and your trip to Arizona. I will take another trip to Arizona in November. So far 15 models are booked. There will be more.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
MDWM wrote:
I see nothing wrong with a model having separate rates for various levels of nudity...that's smart business. Why give it away if this is your income.
For those working a 9-5 job, do you get paid more for working holidays? I was just passing on what quite a few full time models have said to me.
Photographer
Four-Eleven Productions
Posts: 762
Fircrest, Washington, US
Ken Warren Photography wrote:
While I have never used the term to a model's face, I have used it. Most recently, in describing a model who had a rate for fully clothed, and a (higher) rate for lingerie, and a (higher) rate for topless, and a (higher) rate for implied, and a (higher) rate for full nudes, and ...
You get the picture, I'm sure. Stripper rates. Actually, charging more based on the amount of exposure makes perfect business sense. Since there are fewer pretty girls willing to pose in 'enhanced exposure' mode, the laws of supply and demand would suggest any OTHER result would be an anomaly.
Makes for some butt-hurt photographers, though, as evidenced in these forums. They think Ethyl ought to cost the same as regular.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
Like most questions raised here, thed ultimate answer is "It Depends," on the viewer, the model, the photographer, the husband, the wife, the judge, the teacher, the pastor. Each of these is likely to have a different opinion for different reasons.
FWIW it's a question of what you seek to accomplish in the pose and whether or not you are able to carry it off. I've shot open legged stuff that I, at any rate, felt was a valid artistic expression, but I'd have to admit that most of it goes on the "Well, that didn't work" pile. When it does work it's usually because the model and I are both exploring it as a means of bringing out an emotion and the pose itself is nothing more than a natural pose for the mood or emotion rather than an attempt at self-taught gynecology.
That said, exhibitionism is one of the least harmful fetishes and one that almost everyone enjoys to some degree, sometimes. With proper precautions in terms of one's job, emotional relationships and social milieu, why not?
My best suggestion would be, if it's something you want to do, and you are aware that no matter how artistic your intentions, there are very few who will accept your doing so for any but the worst reasons, go ahead. But unless you're willing to take the heat, it's usually best to stay out of the kitchen.
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
I was just passing on what quite a few full time models have said to me. Understood, it's the model's choice.
In LA, charging more for more is common practice when dealing with agencies and publications.
Photographer
Glen Berry
Posts: 2797
Huntington, West Virginia, US
For the love of God and/or Darwin (take your pick), please stop referring to this as "open leg" photography. One does NOT "open" a singular leg to photograph genitalia. Instead a pair of legs are commonly "spread" or "splayed" to create photographs you're referring to. Either that, or both legs are bent sharply at the hip and the subject is photographed from behind. Never, is a single leg "opened" in the process. The only "open leg" photos that I'm aware of are surgery photos. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're wanting to talk about! Just to make sure, here's an actual "open leg" photo. (Caution: It's not for the squeamish.) http://michaelhalvorsen.com/wp-content/ … 638435.jpg So, no. "Open leg" photos are not pornography. They're generally either graphic photos of surgical procedures or they're graphic photos of accident victims. This ranks right up there with the idiots on this site who claim to shave their vagina!
Model
Model MoRina
Posts: 6640
MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica
Glen Berry wrote:
For the love of God and/or Darwin (take your pick), please stop referring to this as "open leg" photography. One does NOT "open" a singular leg to photograph genitalia. Instead a pair of legs are commonly "spread" or "splayed" to create photographs you're referring to. Either that, or both legs are bent sharply at the hip and the subject is photographed from behind. Never, is a single leg "opened" in the process.
The only "open leg" photos that I'm aware of are surgery photos. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're wanting to talk about!
Just to make sure, here's an actual "open leg" photo. (Caution: It's not for the squeamish.)
http://michaelhalvorsen.com/wp-content/ … 638435.jpg
So, no. "Open leg" photos are not pornography. They're generally either graphic photos of surgical procedures or they're graphic photos of accident victims.
This ranks right up there with the idiots on this site who claim to shave their vagina! Your rant is neither correct nor appropriate.
Just because you are not familiar with a commonly used term, it does not make it incorrect.
Model
Pixie Galore
Posts: 141
New York, New York, US
Obviously, one person's art is another person's porn, and yes, there's a fine line between sexy and salacious. I would think that in most instances, poses and shots that are executed with clear artistic and stylistic intent clearly don't cross that line, though I guess we can't always rely on our fellow human beings to demonstrate that kind of critical thinking.
Personally, when I do a full frontal shot, my intent is not to convey the kind of submissive compliance implied by most mainstream porn. If anything I hope to pull off something of an aggressive vibe. I'm not sure if that falls under the subheading of "neo-feminism" or what. However, these particular shots are also done in such a way, either through lighting or strategic posing, that the girly bits aren't what's primarily and explicitly on display. It's an attitude and a mood.
Photographer
Et eris in perpetuum
Posts: 62
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Miss 5 11 wrote:
Pornography : Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings. Pornography is a word and concept I wish we would expunge from our collective lexicon. There is no reason why an art cannot stimulate aesthetic AND erotic feelings, in the same way that art can stimulate fear, horror, wonder, compassion, intrigue or any other reaction. I'm sure we have all seen plenty of examples of images that were both very eroticically and aesthetically stimulating. Pornography was formalised as a concept by people who viewed sex as a sin and thus any form of erotic display was shameful: this applies equally to a woman wearing sexy lingerie on her wedding night as to erotic photography and paintings. You either share these beliefs or you do not. If you do not, then indulge in your creativity and do what makes you happy and stimulates you. Dispense with any limitations you feel you are able to, but remember that other people who you love or who may have influence over your life may fall into the former group, so weigh the risks.
I'm a photographer, so of course I am going to recommend you do not charge more. The reverse logic of believing photographer will pay more to get the image they want is that we would also pay less money to get the image we do not want, and in my case that is certainly not true. To put it another way, if I want a model who has no limitations (yes please) then your limited rates are irrelevent. Of course as a model you may have a different view if you seek to market yourself to photographers with varying needs.
Photographer
Ken Warren Photography
Posts: 933
GLENMOORE, Pennsylvania, US
Four-Eleven Productions wrote:
Actually, charging more based on the amount of exposure makes perfect business sense. Since there are fewer pretty girls willing to pose in 'enhanced exposure' mode, the laws of supply and demand would suggest any OTHER result would be an anomaly.
Makes for some butt-hurt photographers, though, as evidenced in these forums. They think Ethyl ought to cost the same as regular. While I understand where you're coming from, I have to disagree.
Just to be clear, I'm not interested in shooting anything that might be termed "pinks", "spreads", and so on. I agree that charging more for explicit erotica might be justified. If a model has 3+ tiers of rates before she's willing to be nude, though, my experience has been that either she's exclusively interested in the size of the paycheck, or she's not really entirely comfortable with what she's going to be doing and wants it to be "worth it". In either case, experience also tells me that she has the wrong attitude for me to be happy with the results of a collaboration, so I won't work with her.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
I have had conversations with established models about this in the past. One was with a very busy and successful model, who works constantly both thru her agency and thru MM as freelance. She used to be very active on the Forums and was and still is highly respected.
When I asked her if she charges more for nude work, she laughed and basically said she's not a stripper. She said she charges to model - period. Her rates are her rates no matter what the job is or how much or little clothes she is wearing.
I have actually had other models use the term "stripper rates" as well. Maybe I go to the wrong strip clubs but all the ones I go to you get the same lap dance for the same price. If you tip more you can fuck her but that's no longer a stripper.
Stripper rates is retarded really. I charge more for erotic work compared to laying on a fur rug in front of a fire place. Why? Because it takes more energy. The more work I have to do the more I charge. Photographers do the same. Does that make me a stripper? Does it make photographers strippers?
This is why I get ALL the details for the shoot BEFORE I state my rates. That way I can't be dubbed a stripper for having different rate levels
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, Illinois, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
Maybe I go to the wrong strip clubs but all the ones I go to you get the same lap dance for the same price. If you tip more you can fuck her but that's no longer a stripper.
Stripper rates is retarded really. I charge more for erotic work compared to laying on a fur rug in front of a fire place. Why? Because it takes more energy. The more work I have to do the more I charge. Photographers do the same. Does that make me a stripper? Does it make photographers strippers?
This is why I get ALL the details for the shoot BEFORE I state my rates. That way I can't be dubbed a stripper for having different rate levels I get what you are saying. And I understand relaying work into dollars.
I tend to think of "stripper rates" when I see models that say $X for clothed, $X for lingerie, $X for implied, $X for topless, $X for bare butt, $X for full frontal."
How do you even start to decipher that? Do they keep a log - 25 minutes in lingerie, 32 minutes of topless, 41 minutes of butt, 14 minutes of full frontal?
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
Glen Berry wrote:
For the love of God and/or Darwin (take your pick), please stop referring to this as "open leg" photography. One does NOT "open" a singular leg to photograph genitalia. Instead a pair of legs are commonly "spread" or "splayed" to create photographs you're referring to. Either that, or both legs are bent sharply at the hip and the subject is photographed from behind. Never, is a single leg "opened" in the process.
The only "open leg" photos that I'm aware of are surgery photos. I'm pretty sure that's not what you're wanting to talk about!
So, no. "Open leg" photos are not pornography. They're generally either graphic photos of surgical procedures or they're graphic photos of accident victims.
This ranks right up there with the idiots on this site who claim to shave their vagina! If this was medical site, you would have a valid point….but it's a modeling site so your point is invalid.
|
