Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Greg Kolack wrote:
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? Easy, if you want a full nude shoot and she charges different for topless, ass, and full front, then you pay the higher rate or negotiate for a set price.
It's not as hard as people try to make it.
Model
Caitin Bre
Posts: 2687
Apache Junction, Arizona, 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. BINGO! ^Exactly this ^
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, 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. Ethyl is an ancient term. You must be old. 
Photographer
Four-Eleven Productions
Posts: 762
Fircrest, Washington, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Ethyl is an ancient term. You must be old. Guilty!
Model
Jen B
Posts: 4474
Phoenix, Arizona, US
MoRina wrote:
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.) Guts not required as much as interest is.
Good for the OP, do your thing, (my thing would likely bore her as much as open leg makes my eyes glaze over from non interest.)
Photographer
Pantaleoni Photographer
Posts: 79
San Diego, California, US
Great! In fact brilliant comments you made on why you do pose for spread leg. Thank you.
That sincerely complimented, I'm not a fan of the spread leg shot. (Probably means I'm not a sufficiently skilled photographer to make the shot work for me....)
And as others have correctly said, you don't own the work, the photographer does and can place an image in places you didn't know existed and would prefer not to learn about.
Thank you again for the wonderful thoughts.
Model
Model MoRina
Posts: 6640
MacMurdo - permanent station of the US, Sector claimed by New Zealand, Antarctica
MB JenB wrote:
Guts not required as much as interest is.
Good for the OP, do your thing, (my thing would likely bore her as much as open leg makes my eyes glaze over from non interest.) If you have never done it and have such "non-interest", why would you choose to quote me and refute what I say?
Model
Jen B
Posts: 4474
Phoenix, Arizona, 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! 
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! Oh!! thank you for this humor.
Also for the op, I re read my posts and can completely see the lack of empathy. Sorry about that. I guess fhe best I can say is thT I am not able to speak on what ever it is you are trying. I do like how morina posted about nothing being wrong with posing this way or in avoiding it.
Jenb
Model
Jen B
Posts: 4474
Phoenix, Arizona, US
MoRina wrote:
If you have never done it and have such "non-interest", why would you choose to quote me and refute what I say? Im not refuting you. For me it has nothing to do with courage and it isnt an issue for.
However I do not think courage or fear motivates the op as for her posts but, either way, kudos to anyone facing and winning over a fear.
Edit for tablet typos
Photographer
dtlaloftstudio
Posts: 3
Los Angeles, California, US
Is the work of Georgia O'Keefe pornographic? If your answer is "No" then there are two answers to the OP's questions. No, it is no porn and ask for whatever compensation you like.
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
dtlaloftstudio wrote:
Is the work of Georgia O'Keefe pornographic? If your answer is "No" then there are two answers to the OP's questions. No, it is no porn and ask for whatever compensation you like. You can not equate a flower, no matter how suggestive as pornography. In fact O'Keefe herself did not feel her work represented female genitallia. That is something the viewing public labeled it.
The model can do what ever she wants, she's an individual. But don't confuse most of MMs rank amateur spread shots as art. Next you will tell me that Hustler is really a Sotherby's (sp) auction catalogue
Model
Figures Jen B
Posts: 790
Phoenix, Arizona, US
MB JenB wrote:
Guts not required as much as interest is.
Good for the OP, do your thing, (my thing would likely bore her as much as open leg makes my eyes glaze over from non interest.) Random interject but I realize I have several open leg shots, one clothed by Lumatic in my mb jenb profile and one art nude by Risen Pheonix in this one. I have done it often yet without exposing things as per my preference. Apologies to the op for sharing my views on preference on what I show or see. Its a personal preference.
Not a judgement.
Jen B
P.s. I see risen pheonix above me and made me realize that we just shot an open leg art shot last month! Top row on my port . Thank you again Risen Pheonix!
Edit for tablet typos
Photographer
Risen Phoenix Photo
Posts: 3779
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Figures JenB wrote:
Random interject but I realize I have several open leg shots, one clothed by Lumatic in my mb jenb profile and one art nude by Risen Pheonix in this one. I have done it often yet without exposing things as per my preference. Apologies to the op for sharing my views on preference on what I show or see. Its a personal preference.
Not a judgement.
Jen B
P.s. I see risen pheonix above me and made me realize that we just shot an open leg art shot last month! Top row on my port . Thank you again Risen Pheonix!
Edit for tablet typos Yes, an open leg shot can be done with out resorting to gynecological studies. I consider the former art and the latter pornography, but that is my personal bias.
Photographer
MdM
Posts: 1
Albany, New York, 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. Art or Porn.... the difference is different for everyone
What are your scruples? What are you looking to gain and enhance your profile with on a professional level? I do not dream of working for Hustler, Penthouse or any of the others.
I prefer to have thing stimulating for the mind....letting the viewer wondering. Are there times when a shoot could call for it? Yes at times I agree there is.
As an amateur photographer I stay away from these 99% of the time. When talking with a possible muse about a theme , if ANY nudity below the waist is to be shot I insist for them to have a friend, ect attend. (all except for one as we have known each other for going on 6 years).
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
MdM wrote:
Art or Porn.... the difference is different for everyone
What are your scruples? What are you looking to gain and enhance your profile with on a professional level? I do not dream of working for Hustler, Penthouse or any of the others.
I prefer to have thing stimulating for the mind....letting the viewer wondering. Are there times when a shoot could call for it? Yes at times I agree there is.
As an amateur photographer I stay away from these 99% of the time. When talking with a possible muse about a theme , if ANY nudity below the waist is to be shot I insist for them to have a friend, ect attend. (all except for one as we have known each other for going on 6 years). I have never had a problem when the model posed open leg.
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30131
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have never had a problem when the model posed open leg. Man , You Love this thread ...don't you Jerry
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have never had a problem when the model posed open leg. What exactly is your reason for wanting to photograph models open leg Jerry?
And you said you've got 15 models booked already, so presumably hundreds of others in the past. What on earth do you do with all these pics?
I can guess the answer, but just curious?
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
London Fog wrote:
What exactly is your reason for wanting to photograph models open leg Jerry?
And you said you've got 15 models booked already, so presumably hundreds of others in the past. What on earth do you do with all these pics?
I can guess the answer, but just curious? I have never asked a model to pose open leg. Some do it on their own.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Garry k wrote:
Man , You Love this thread ...don't you Jerry
I wouldn't say that. It's your opinion!
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, 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. It might make sense in a theoretical kind of way, but in the daily "life" of internet modeling, there's such a taboo against doing that, that it will decrease your revenue and bookings overall.
Of course, the way AROUND this is to simply not post rates anywhere, then propose higher compensation for offers for erotic work, if you personally feel you need more to do that style of work, essentially working on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that photographers love to book you for art nudes, with the intention of later requesting erotica, once an art nude rate is already established. It's a common practice that sometimes results in people feeling like they can get "more for less," but disenfranchises models who seek to capitalize on being willing to shoot spreads at higher compensation. Had I known in advance the, "Hey, so our shoot is coming up. Would you be up for some more explicit shots?" was going to be sprung on me, I wouldn't have agreed to shoot 3 hours of art nudes for $50/hour. I'd have priced the whole session higher, because it is a different style of work, and shooting erotica is far different from shooting art nudes, regardless of what a lot of people claim.
Photographer
Ken Warren Photography
Posts: 933
GLENMOORE, Pennsylvania, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
Easy, if you want a full nude shoot and she charges different for topless, ass, and full front, then you pay the higher rate or negotiate for a set price.
It's not as hard as people try to make it. I ask for one rate:
"I will be shooting artistic nudes, the sort of thing you see in my portfolio. Please take a look and quote me a rate."
I've sometimes gotten 7 different rates quoted back. If she quotes me one rate, I will never know if it's her "any amount of nudity involved" rate or her "artistic as opposed to implied or erotic nude" rate. And that's fine, because it doesn't matter. When I see multiple tiers in a profile, or quoted to me, I move on.
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
Koryn wrote:
It might make sense in a theoretical kind of way, but in the daily "life" of internet modeling, there's such a taboo against doing that, that it will decrease your revenue and bookings overall.
Of course, the way AROUND this is to simply not post rates anywhere, then propose higher compensation for offers for erotic work, if you personally feel you need more to do that style of work, essentially working on a case by case basis.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that photographers love to book you for art nudes, with the intention of later requesting erotica, once an art nude rate is already established. It's a common practice that sometimes results in people feeling like they can get "more for less," but disenfranchises models who seek to capitalize on being willing to shoot spreads at higher compensation. Had I known in advance the, "Hey, so our shoot is coming up. Would you be up for some more explicit shots?" was going to be sprung on me, I wouldn't have agreed to shoot 3 hours of art nudes for $50/hour. I'd have priced the whole session higher, because it is a different style of work, and shooting erotica is far different from shooting art nudes, regardless of what a lot of people claim. Did you cancel or did you give in to his request and shoot more explicit? If you shot, why didn't you raise your fee since the concept changed?
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
MDWM wrote:
Did you cancel or did you give in to his request and shoot more explicit? If you shot, why didn't you raise your fee since the concept changed? I've had this happen many, many times over the past seven years. These days, I generally say I'll only shoot the content we already agreed on, and the rate we also agreed upon. Basically, just state that it is already settled and decided, and I wish to stick to that. They will mostly say, "okay," and everything is fine and good.
There have been a couple of occasions where I tried modifying the rate, if they wanted to include erotic work, and both cancelled on me. That tactic is not well received. They tend to feel it's ok to spring that on the model last-minute, but then it's not okay for the model to make adjustments in accordance with shoot content changes.
I have very, very rarely initiated a cancellation, and prefer negotiation to cancellation.
Back 6 years ago, when I was still a newbie to shooting erotic content, I was much more naive, and was terrified of saying "no," then losing paid work. Subsequently, I've wised up a lot. A LOT. I've actually maximized my revenue exponentially since that time, because I am far more assertive, expect (and earn) higher rates, and generally am more comfortable saying"no" to useless TF offers.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Garry k wrote:
Man , You Love this thread ...don't you Jerry
+1
LMAO....
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, 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. More often than not I say stop. A few variables but....
Photographer
East West
Posts: 847
Los Angeles, California, US
Koryn wrote:
I've had this happen many, many times over the past seven years. These days, I generally say I'll only shoot the content we already agreed on, and the rate we also agreed upon. Basically, just state that it is already settled and decided, and I wish to stick to that. They will mostly say, "okay," and everything is fine and good.
There have been a couple of occasions where I tried modifying the rate, if they wanted to include erotic work, and both cancelled on me. That tactic is not well received. They tend to feel it's ok to spring that on the model last-minute, but then it's not okay for the model to make adjustments in accordance with shoot content changes.
I have very, very rarely initiated a cancellation, and prefer negotiation to cancellation.
Back 6 years ago, when I was still a newbie to shooting erotic content, I was much more naive, and was terrified of saying "no," then losing paid work. Subsequently, I've wised up a lot. A LOT. I've actually maximized my revenue exponentially since that time, because I am far more assertive, expect (and earn) higher rates, and generally am more comfortable saying"no" to useless TF offers. That's F*ck up! It shouldn't be this way....unfortunately, this happens over and over.
Let's hear from the photographers who feel this is ok.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
MDWM wrote:
That's F*ck up! It shouldn't be this way....unfortunately, this happens over and over.
Let's hear from the photographers who feel this is ok. You're not really going to find these people on the forums here.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Cherrystone wrote:
More often than not I say stop. A few variables but.... One of these models is in my portfolio fully clothed.
Photographer
GeorgeMann
Posts: 1148
Orange, California, US
Well, I do not shoot it because I do not like it. This is a personal preference.
I don't think it is all pornography, and I think many who do shoot it have the idea that crotch close-ups are Art.
Such images appear to me as someone once said "Many of those that shoot solely spread leg close-ups and calling it artistic are mistaking Artistic integrity with notoriety."
Such displays, to me, fit nicely into the category of "shock art".
When I hire a model, I very plainly tell her I do not want any explicit images.
If I accidently get an explicit image it is deleted when loaded to the computer, or if I like the shot, I use one of my many home made "Bush plug-ins" made from the neatly groomed bush of several Art nude models shot long ago, and simply placed and trimmed to fit over the exposed area (pink), or shadowed in.
Many people, friends, neighbors, and family view my photographs and I sincerely believe that the absence of "open leg" images keeps them alright with my photography, and out of the pornography tag they would surely place on them if there was explicit frontal among them.
To some, the opinion of others is not important, but since I shoot in my home, in a residential neighborhood with young ladies continuously coming and going, it is important to maintain an image that does not offend neighbors.
I think there is definitely a place for pornography and open leg shots, Particularly for those who sell them, but just not in my collection.
There are a great many photographers here that do fantastic jobs with open leg images, but there are a few here that just shoot a snatch.
Like I said, I have nothing against it, it is just not my bag.
Photographer
Christian B Aragon
Posts: 261
Sparks, Nevada, US
I've seen beautiful portraits of vulvas just as I have seen beautiful portraits of faces. I've seen poorly done portraits of both as well. Probably due to considerably different events in my life I do not distinguish one body part as publicly acceptable and another as "explicit." Explicit is just another demonization of the human form and/or its parts.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Ken Warren Photography wrote:
I ask for one rate:
"I will be shooting artistic nudes, the sort of thing you see in my portfolio. Please take a look and quote me a rate."
I've sometimes gotten 7 different rates quoted back. If she quotes me one rate, I will never know if it's her "any amount of nudity involved" rate or her "artistic as opposed to implied or erotic nude" rate. And that's fine, because it doesn't matter. When I see multiple tiers in a profile, or quoted to me, I move on. Ok you move on, so this conversation is pointless. Case closed.
You disagree with what she has to say so therefore you find someone else. Problem solved. NEXT!
Model
Miss 5 11
Posts: 71
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Thanks for everyone's input. J
Model
Gelsen Aripia
Posts: 1407
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I always thought that pornography meant sexual content. As in, people engaged in some sort of sexual act (penetration, masturbation, etc). I've never thought that someone opening their legs and letting someone snap a picture meant that it's pornography. I've also never thought that it was art.
My personal policy is that if a good, artistic shot of me is taken and that shot just happens to show "bits", then I'm O.K. with it. But if it's gratuitous, or the "bits" are the focus of the shot, I have no use for it.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Miss 5 11 wrote:
Thanks for everyone's input. J Good Luck.
Photographer
David Stone Imaging
Posts: 1032
Seattle, 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. 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. Models are selling a service. When the level of service changes, it would seem appropriate that the price of the service might also change/increase.
However...I once had a model take this to an extreme. She had levels and combinations...and in the end charged $5 more for each nipple. Collectively...the rate would be $65 for full nude. I asked if I could pay $75 and just forget the pricing levels.
Photographer
phoenixphoto
Posts: 125
Gunnedah, New South Wales, Australia
If you are the best in the world at something, you can charge/get paid a lot of money for it (Golf or tennis anyone?) If you offer a product or commodity that is rare, then that can be more valuable.
I also think that pornography is sexual content. Explicit is how I would term a legs apart shot.
Photographer
Bolo Paolo
Posts: 25
Villefranche-de-Rouergue, Midi-Pyrénées, France
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. Erotic is also an emotionnal feeling ... Or should be considered as one, since we know that emotions come equaly from social education and glands in our body.
So the definition of pornographic should be different may be.
Model
Rockabella
Posts: 588
Bargara, Queensland, Australia
I'm sorry, but in my eyes it's usually distasteful and unessasary for the sake of art. Most of the time being purely for erotic purposes.. I'd have to say yes. It's pornography whether it's your intent or not. Sure there are some really classy pictures of labia out there, but it all depends on who's taking the picture and how they portray you. Personally? If I were to do spreads I would charge more. Supply and demand. But maybe I'm just old school, everyone is entitled to do what they want and express themselves as they will
Model
MatureModelMM
Posts: 2844
Detroit, Michigan, US
I've seen some extremely pornographic shots where the model's legs are together, so that isn't always what makes something porn instead of artistic.
Along the same lines, I have posed many times with my legs apart for both artists and photographers, including for art groups in a studio setting, and the results were artistic and very erotic, but not pornographic. The intention of everyone present, including myself, was to create erotic art.
Yes, a lot of it is in the eyes or mind of the viewer, but I'm pretty sure that most every model knows whether she is doing artistic or pornographic poses at the time she's being photographed. Personally I have no problem with showing everything as long as it is done tastefully and more artistically, but I expect to be treated with respect by the photographer or artist, and compensated more if that is the main focus of our work at any given session. Being completely natural and sporting a full bush, even with my legs opened you can't really distinguish my labia unless it is an extreme closeup or they are open, which is not something I would normally allow to be photographed.
|
