Photographer
Amelia G
Posts: 570
Los Angeles, California, US
I wondered about this while reading another thread where people were discussing whether the economic downturn would decrease GWCs or give them an edge.
I think it is frustrating for any artist trying to get by to offer someone a totally fair and commercially viable rate and have them come back with the rate a GWC gave them. The whole point is that a GWC is not basing their rates or policies on being a professional artist, so, when paying a model a gajillion dollars an hour or whatever, a GWC does not have to factor in how little they will actually make from wherever the work is likely to be published. I do not think of GWC as meaning someone who is untalented or a beginner necessarily, just someone who is holding the camera for reasons which have little to do with the final image.
How do you define GWC?
Photographer
Russell Lewis
Posts: 4278
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.
Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror.
Photographer
Terry Osterhout
Posts: 662
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
I think a GWC's work defines them as such.
Anyone can pick up a camera and shoot but it isn't hard to determine whether someone is a hobbyist or a talented eye with some skills.
You can't fake vision, but I've also seen some skilled photographers with a good working knowledge of lighting and the technical aspects of photography who don't take very interesting photos.
Eye of the beholder, I guess.
Your work is great, by the way.
Photographer
AMCphotography
Posts: 439
Los Angeles, California, US
I'm sure I'm would be considered a GWC, but I'm hoping to get out of that Genre. I think the only way to do that is to continue shooting
Model
Rachel Jay
Posts: 20441
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Well according to the MM FAQ's: 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. I tend to agree with this definition. The only thing I would argue is that not every GWC is an amateur hack who can't take a decent shot. I've worked with a few GWCs who take great pictures...
Photographer
David Young Photography
Posts: 117
Bicester, England, United Kingdom
GWC = Amateur
before anyone goes off on one I don't mean amateur as in someone who doesn't know what they are doing but as someone who has no concerns about making a living from the images they create. If you have a job and this is a hobby then you can charge/pay whatever you like and it has no bearing on your life as a whole.
Without meaning to get into a rant about this (which has been done numerous times in other places) but that's basically what it comes down to. I guess the best example is wedding photography (at least it is where i am). Professional photographers (good ones) will charge say £1000 for a full days coverage of a wedding which covers all their costs and pays for the ongoing development of the business (insurance, travel costs, web costs etc). GWC's tend to be retired gentlemen with good pensions and all the kit and no interest in making a living and they will charge less than half that because they are doing it for fun (I call them Uncle Bob's but feel free to substitute for the name of your choice). Some of them are good and some of them aren't but if you are getting married and you have no idea about what makes a good photographer what are you going to do? Pay £1000 or £500......it's a no brainer.
Anyway that's only my opinion, feel free to correct.........
Photographer
AndysPrints
Posts: 533
Falls Church, Virginia, US
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera.
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
When we first coined the term "GWC" (in OMP's chat room) after my return from the great OMP Las Vegas shootout it was intended to reflect what I had seen. GWC is simply a guy who uses his camera to get close to attractive women... the images are secondary. That's all it was intended to reflect.
And it is in distinct difference towards amateurs who might be very talented but simply don't make their living from their photographic pursuits.
Calling an amateur, or a newbie a "GWC" automatically is incorrect and offensive.
Photographer
Russell Lewis
Posts: 4278
FilmmakerDC wrote:
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera. I rest my case.
Photographer
RDPhoto - Ric
Posts: 601
Atlanta, Georgia, US
The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.
Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror. I bow in your general direction.
Photographer
JEBKA Photography
Posts: 3974
Firestone, Colorado, US
I don't define it.
It has absolutely no bearing on my life or my livelihood.
Photographer
David Young Photography
Posts: 117
Bicester, England, United Kingdom
RStephenT wrote:
When we first coined the term "GWC" (in OMP's chat room) after my return from the great OMP Las Vegas shootout it was intended to reflect what I had seen. GWC is simply a guy who uses his camera to get close to attractive women... the images are secondary. That's all it was intended to reflect.
And it is in distinct difference towards amateurs who might be very talented but simply don't make their living from their photographic pursuits.
Calling an amateur, or a newbie a "GWC" automatically is incorrect and offensive. ......and i guess i have been corrected
Photographer
Xeris - Dwight
Posts: 4369
Austin, Texas, US
RStephenT wrote:
When we first coined the term "GWC" (in OMP's chat room) after my return from the great OMP Las Vegas shootout it was intended to reflect what I had seen. GWC is simply a guy who uses his camera to get close to attractive women... the images are secondary. That's all it was intended to reflect.
And it is in distinct difference towards amateurs who might be very talented but simply don't make their living from their photographic pursuits.
Calling an amateur, or a newbie a "GWC" automatically is incorrect and offensive. I agree with this definition.
It has nothing to do with amateur/professional, good/bad photographer, etc. It is about intent. There are some GWCs out there that are damned fine photographers, just as there are professionals out there that are completely shitty photographers.
Photographer
Gil Lang
Posts: 4655
Isla Vista, California, US
Always thought a GWC is a guy that use the photography medium to get access to naked girls by paying them to pose for him...I may be wrong?
Photographer
David Young Photography
Posts: 117
Bicester, England, United Kingdom
FilmmakerDC wrote:
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera. don't you mean "bear arms"........you can roll your sleeves up if you want but I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind.........
Photographer
JACOBFAKHERI
Posts: 798
Abbott, Texas, US
FilmmakerDC wrote:
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera. Well, what you are saying basically implies that there is a license/liberty debate on whether or not you can physically hold an object. As far as I know currently, in laws around the states, there is no licensing exam, no test to take, etc, to be able to physically pick up a camera, and take photographs.
Sorry, but... that's a stupid position. From a purely legal standpoint.
Photographer
Cliff from NJ
Posts: 1430
Clinton, New Jersey, US
I thought it meant "Grossly Waffelling Congressman"???
Photographer
RDPhoto - Ric
Posts: 601
Atlanta, Georgia, US
FilmmakerDC wrote:
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera. Bare arms? Short sleeves?
Anyone with money and desire can drive. They may not drive well, and they may not make the F1 circuit, but they can drive. You pass a test to drive.
Anyone with hands can hold a camera. Anyone with fingers can take pictures. I gave a camera to my 9 year old while we were at a race, and he proceeded to take several perfect panning shots. A GWC? No. He likes taking pictures now. If he sells a picture to someone is he stealing your market share? Maybe all the photographers screaming GWC should market themselves better and and earn some real business.
I tire of people slamming people who just like taking pictures and are 'eroding the craft' or whatever the term of the day is. Get real, or at least get better at ALL aspects of the photography business. Spend your energy marketing for clients not complaining about someone who stole one models $100 from you.
Photographer
S
Posts: 21678
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate. I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business. I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.
Fuck that. I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new. After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.
Yeah. I said it.
So guess what, folks? If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?
The problem ain't me.
Photographer
Boho Hobo
Posts: 25351
Santa Barbara, California, US
Amelia G wrote:
I wondered about this while reading another thread where people were discussing whether the economic downturn would decrease GWCs or give them an edge.
I think it is frustrating for any artist trying to get by to offer someone a totally fair and commercially viable rate and have them come back with the rate a GWC gave them. The whole point is that a GWC is not basing their rates or policies on being a professional artist, so, when paying a model a gajillion dollars an hour or whatever, a GWC does not have to factor in how little they will actually make from wherever the work is likely to be published. I do not think of GWC as meaning someone who is untalented or a beginner necessarily, just someone who is holding the camera for reasons which have little to do with the final image.
How do you define GWC? The problem, especially accentuated by the economy, is you can't stop undercutting. People need money and the perception that getting the job might be related to low rates causes this.
And you can't stop biz who employ photographers or images from paying less.
It's the Walmart philosophy applied to photography. AND with increases in technology which will allow GWC's (however defined) to get keeper images, I see more impact on rates that professional photographers can make.
Obviously the high level photographers won't be impacted b/c they are in the upper echelon.
Model
Stella K
Posts: 2173
New York, New York, US
The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant. Yes! Beautiful.
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
Gil Lang wrote:
Always thought a GWC is a guy that use the photography medium to get access to naked girls by paying them to pose for him...I may be wrong? Every male photographer does that. So called professional photographers hide the drooling a bit better than the new GWC. If he is very good, he doesn't have to pay to get girls naked.
Come guys, can we just admit that we all GWC's and done with it. Artistic, light and shadow are getting lame. They are just tools to get girls naked. 
Photographer
Lumigraphics
Posts: 32780
Detroit, Michigan, US
Rachel Jay wrote:
Well according to the MM FAQ's:
I tend to agree with this definition. The only thing I would argue is that not every GWC is an amateur hack who can't take a decent shot. I've worked with a few GWCs who take great pictures... Raises hand... except we haven't worked together yet 
Photographer
Novus Photography
Posts: 586
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.
Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror. QFT.
By the standards of the majority, I am an amateur, or a "GWC". So be it, we all start somewhere.
What pisses me off, is the self righteous elitist pricks who think I have no right to be here because I'm not as good as they are.
Fact is, for a guy with no formal training, no budget, and a bottom of the barrel 40D, I say I hold my own half decent, thanks.
Photographer
J Bennett Photography
Posts: 1270
Paramus, New Jersey, US
GWC's are the photographers who contanatly write about & complain about GWC's.
Its just like the Ultra Homophobic jock or coach is really a closet Homo.
Same thing.
Model
Miss Anna Evans
Posts: 40233
Astoria, New York, US
To me, a GWC is anyone who's hiring the model more to see her naked than because they care about the images. If they're not overly forward, I'll still take their money.
Model
Less Than Two
Posts: 23401
Ann Arbor, Michigan, US
Good With Cake.
Like Strawberries would be GWC.
Photographer
normad
Posts: 11372
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
The Rusty Horse wrote:
A GWC is someone who triggers insecurity in the arrogant.
Everyone has right to hold a camera. There are an awful lot of people, it seems, ready to scream 'GWC', who would do better to spend a little time in front of a mirror. I'm wondering if I should go look at myself at the mirror, or whether I should use a mirror looking at another mirror in my case ... any advice?,
insecurely yours,
a random gwc
p.s.: beautifully concise line.
Photographer
Connor Photography
Posts: 8539
Newark, Delaware, US
PhotoJoe wrote:
GWC's are the photographers who contanatly write about & complain about GWC's. Bingo.
And if look into their port, it fills with all GWC shots.
Photographer
David Young Photography
Posts: 117
Bicester, England, United Kingdom
Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate. I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business. I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.
Fuck that. I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new. After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.
Yeah. I said it.
So guess what, folks? If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?
The problem ain't me. i take everything back!!! thank you for your comments and for being so sickeningly, horrendously f***ing talented......i LOVE your work.
Photographer
Charles Metivier Photo
Posts: 391
Fairfield, California, US
Raelyn Mouse wrote:
Good With Cake.
Like Strawberries would be GWC. Even better, nude models and strawberries!
Photographer
TRPn Pics
Posts: 10435
Silver Springs Shores, Florida, US
Sita Mae wrote:
I am so...fucking...sick of the GWC debate. I am tired of it being used as a synonym for an amateur, or someone who is just beginning to develop their business. I am tired of being continually put down and insulted by virtue of the fact that photography isn't my career, as though the exchange of money is the only measure of value in the world.
Fuck that. I'm a damn good photographer, and I am sick to fucking death of being treated as though I am some sweaty-palmed sleazeball simply because I'm new. After three years I'm better than more than a few of the egomaniacs I've met who have been shooting longer than I've been alive, and who like to beat us all over the head with that fact on a regular basis.
Yeah. I said it.
So guess what, folks? If my piddly little self, with my three years of experience and my small paid jobs and my collaborative shoots is actually impacting the business of supposedly brilliant, experienced, full time professional photographers, then guess what?
The problem ain't me. QFT
Photographer
Vector 38
Posts: 8296
Austin, Texas, US
Amelia G wrote:
How do you define GWC? honestly, i don't even try; no need to worry as much about the other guy when i can focus on my own work & marketing, etc. ...
~ fr
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
FilmmakerDC wrote:
Hmm...dusting off the Constitution ...turning to the back ...ok , here it is ..Bill of Rights ....hmmm.... right to free speech, ..right to bare arms ...hmm...I don't see right to hold camera?
I've always thought it was kinda like driving. Driving is not a right it's a privilege.
It's a privilege to hold a camera. Actually, photography is considered a form of the press, and protected under the 1st Amendment.
Photographer
Zachary Reed
Posts: 523
Denver, Colorado, US
why does this topic never seem to go away?
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
IMO, a GWC is anyone--professional or amateur--whose main reason for holding a camera is to be able to ogle naked models.
Technically, I'm not a GWC. I've photographed landscapes for years, generally avoiding any humans in the image at all. I also do some model photography, simply because I love photography. But, I must admit that photographing nude female models is an incredible motivating force for me, stronger than any I have ever before felt in my photographic career.
Photographer
Imagebuffet
Posts: 15842
Richardson, Texas, US
Zachary Reed wrote:
why does this topic never seem to go away? Are you kidding? It gives us a chance to write, "naked female models"! I enjoy just writing that, over and over and over.
Photographer
David Young Photography
Posts: 117
Bicester, England, United Kingdom
Imagebuffet wrote:
Are you kidding? It gives us a chance to write, "naked female models"! I enjoy just writing that, over and over and over. ..........surely that comment qualifies you as a gwc........but in a nice way
Clothing Designer
nothing
Posts: 9229
Okinawa, Okinawa, Japan
Rachel Jay wrote:
Well according to the MM FAQ's:
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. /thread
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
Rachel Jay wrote:
Well according to the MM FAQ's:
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. Just because it is in MM FAQ's doesn't make it law. GWC was never intended to be a derogatory term for an amateur photographer... how many times does this need to be repeated before some of you get it.
GWC is a term used when any photographer (amateur or pro) uses his camera and/or photographic skills to get close to attractive women. The images to him (or her) are secondary.
Simply because a person is not making $$$ from his/her craft does not instantly make his or her work insignificant. I have seen the work of many amateurs whose images are the equal (or are superior) to any pro's work. In fact if you think about it... whose work is likely to be better? One who does it because of the enjoyment and satisfaction (an advocation) they receive or one who is producing images that reflect his client's needs and desires?
Show respect to those who can create quality work; it's not, nor ever has been about $$$ exclusively!
Oh and BTW the term was in use way prior to MM's existance (it originated in OMP's chat room... I know... I was there) ... just to set the record straight
|
