Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Jordan May wrote:
The work I do as a business provides me with more than enough for my portfolio most of which is not on MM because this place is 90% GWC's. I guess I'm dim today - how does the fact that this site is, as you say, 90% GWC motivate you to not put your best work here?
I would think it would be the opposite, in fact - if this site is 90% amateur, wouldn't you want to look that much better than everyone else and attract more paying work?
What did I miss?
Photographer
Jordan Hamilton May
Posts: 276
Lake Forest, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
Great. Me, too, for the most part. But that doesn't change the poster's question. Let me rephrase it for you: "How much do YOUR CLIENTS typically pay the models for implied and nude work?"
My original answer still stands, of course, but I hope this made it easier for you to give a constructive answer.
I won't charge you for my help :-) HAHA. It really depends on what I am shooting for. There really isnt a good answer for the money question. Content for websites is one rate, advertising is another, etc... I have a standard rate of $100 an hour to shoot anything. I always make sure I get my rate and then I negotiate with the model for what she expects to get based on the job and then I propose it to the client and we negotiate. Come up with the amount and agree to it and move forward! Either I will set it up to pay me and the model seperate by the client or I will have the client pay me the full amount and I pay the models fee through that money.
Photographer
Jordan Hamilton May
Posts: 276
Lake Forest, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
I guess I'm dim today - how does the fact that this site is, as you say, 90% GWC motivate you to not put your best work here?
I would think it would be the opposite, in fact - if this site is 90% amateur, wouldn't you want to look that much better than everyone else and attract more paying work?
What did I miss? Hey we all make our own choices right? I just dont update this place as often I guess you could say. Also, I shoot mostly proprietary stuff that I dont keep the copyrights too (ie:content). This year alot of that will change with some new plans and new directions I am going. I expect my entire port to change in 2007. The last 6 months for me though have been doing mostly stuff I sell off all rights too. Its been worth it 
Photographer
CLT
Posts: 12979
Winchester, Virginia, US
Bianca Smith wrote:
I think I'm going to stop by my agent's office today. Yeah, a real physical agent. Hey guys, and gals, SHE HAS AN AGENT! and her agent has... AN OFFICE!
Whoa, it's like, she's cooler than all of us combined. Sorry for shouting, but I just wanted to make sure everyone know that she's a represented model.
Photographer
charles kafka
Posts: 109
Burlington, Vermont, US
whoa, does that mean im a strippie? (a photog who won't turn down a nude or semi nude set?) . Ive been trying to put some current nudes into my body of work, but now I feel dirty. also bianca, your hieght is 5'6" good luck getting any major agents to handle you. I believe out in CA, the hieght is around 5'10, or something? Anyway, as soon as modeling, or photography isn't fun anymore. its time to get out of the business. Its about making beautiful (and sometimes not so beautiful ) images, and making the world a more inspired, diverse, artistic place. and hopefully making some cash on the side charles kafka dang, I get sidetracked easily. for nudes / implied nudes, I usually pay $200 for a two hour session, based on experiance. with the more experianced models. you can get the shots you need in a hour to two hours anyway. but this is burlington vt. With less experianced models, usually I don't ask for nudes. the key word is usually, there are many factors here. 1/ pocket book 2/ experiance 3/ what pictures the model needs 4/ what im going to do with the pictures. Envy wrote: She calls us strippers and we are the assholes? Did I say, "Envy is a stripper"? Bianca Smith wrote:
Did I say, "Envy is a stripper"?
No, I said "there is a difference between being a super-model and a stripper-model." Most stripper-models (a term I will take credit for making up myself) don't make money, but give free peep shows.
Now if you take offense to that, I suppose it hit close to home.
Nice name by the way. 
Model
Dances with Wolves
Posts: 25108
SHAWNEE ON DELAWARE, Pennsylvania, US
CLT wrote:
Hey guys, and gals, SHE HAS AN AGENT! and her agent has... AN OFFICE!
Whoa, it's like, she's cooler than all of us combined. Sorry for shouting, but I just wanted to make sure everyone know that she's a represented model. and the rest of us are just strippers.
Photographer
Jordan Hamilton May
Posts: 276
Lake Forest, California, US
95% of "agents" I have found are nothing more than scam artists. You do not need one unless you are so big you cannot manage the correspondence between clients and jobs yourself. Or you are a retard. lol
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
CLT wrote:
Hey guys, and gals, SHE HAS AN AGENT! and her agent has... AN OFFICE!
Whoa, it's like, she's cooler than all of us combined. Sorry for shouting, but I just wanted to make sure everyone know that she's a represented model. I could probably drive up to L.A., go to a Denny's, and get the names of half a dozen agents by asking the waiters and waitresses who represents them.
Photographer
Veteres Vitri
Posts: 1994
MAYLENE, Alabama, US
CLT wrote:
Hey guys, and gals, SHE HAS AN AGENT! and her agent has... AN OFFICE!
Whoa, it's like, she's cooler than all of us combined. Sorry for shouting, but I just wanted to make sure everyone know that she's a represented model. That's nice she has an agent. I have a toaster. Anyone want some buttered toast?
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
One last glurg before I bounce and do some studio work.
There are plenty of Bullshit artist on both sides of the camera on MM. This is true. We all know who they are and they are easy to pick out in a crowd. Bianca, new to MM and not the greatest start, and not the worst start ever.
There are certainly some models which may fall into the catagories you "created". However, there are some you left out. It's your blanket staements that are off base. If you are going to make catagories, include ALL of them so as not to appear to be acting like an ass, of thoughtless person.
People are going to react. Simple.
Hell, around here people will react even if you are not off base. Happens everyday.
As to your REAL agent...well..cough... I am a REAL Producer....guess what? Nobody cares. It carries no weight on MM, only in my real world business. This is a playground at best. I really try not to refer to my career standing and title unless it's to make a REAL point. outside of that, I just sound like an over inflated ass.
I learned that the hard way during one of my HIGH EGO days.
Hang Loose...
Photographer
Meehan
Posts: 2463
Merrimack, New Hampshire, US
People, people please.... here snack on this ![https://cal.bemidjistate.edu/english/crcarlson/images/fish%20guts%20on%20table.jpg]() And let the poor spawn get up stream a little will ya?
Photographer
Le Beck Photography
Posts: 4114
Los Angeles, California, US
Timm wrote:
I saw that too, and found it rather odd. Art and nudes have kinda' gone together for, well, several centuries. . . Try Millennia, several millennia.
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
Here is the last thing I have to say about this:
Law of intelligence:
High IQ is not required for being successful. But all successful people have high IQ.
Law of modeling:
Shooting nude is not required for someone to be successful in modeling. But all successful models have shoot nude.
If you live inside a glasshouse, never throw rocks at someone.
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
Le Beck Photography wrote:
Try Millennia, several millennia. Well, some people in California never took history class and didn't know that.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Cecil Sharps wrote:
You left out number 3.
Pretensious artist.
ken rockwell surrenders I'm not pretentious.
I am poor, tho so I usually work out something other than pay.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Bianca Smith wrote:
Well said Christopher.
I just joined this site as well - although I am no stranger to this so called world of "Modeling". You definitely have to be smart in this psuedo-entertainment based industry. Many photographers are actually pick-up artists in disguise as professional photographers.
My advice would be not to get naked at all. Nudes never go away. They will always be around. And eventually, even if you don't now, you will eventually regret it. *boggle*
Wow
What an interesting set of attitudes.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Leo Chan wrote:
Here is the last thing I have to say about this:
Law of intelligence:
High IQ is not required for being successful. But all successful people have high IQ. This is logically incorrect.
If all successful people have high IQ, then nobody without a high IQ will be successful. Therefore, high IQ is, indeed, required.
You might want to re-word this law.
Photographer
Jordan Hamilton May
Posts: 276
Lake Forest, California, US
JJD Productions wrote:
I'm not sure who you are calling a retard here but there are agents and there are managers. Models (and photographers) use agents to get work. There are scams but a lot of the available work only goes through licensed agencies and if you don't have representation you don't hear about those jobs. Some agencies specialize in promotional and commercial stuff that does not require models over 5'6". When the correspondence becomes unmanageable, that is when you get a manager but you usually have had an agent for a while before that. There are lots of folks on MM that have agency representation and augment that with their own freelance work. I think that is smart - not retarded.
Jim :-) You are correct. You are talking about that 5% that is legit.
Photographer
SLE Photography
Posts: 68937
Orlando, Florida, US
Bianca Smith wrote:
Trya Banks is a millionaire.
Not to mention in within the top 5 percentile of models who make a steady living.
Trya Banks and Tila Tequila-wanna-be's are drastically different than each other.
In my oh so humble opinion, I'd have to say that there is a difference between being a super-model and a stipper-model. Stripper-models make no money, but give away photos of themselves naked, for the photographer's own use. (i.e. left hand)
Much love.
Bianca Smith I have 3 questions: Does it make you sad to go thru daily life with such a negative attitude about people?
And if you feel this way, why're you on a site like this that must, according to your standards, be filled with perverted men & regretful women?
And have you considered how insulting your sentiments sound to the majority of people here?
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
This is logically incorrect.
If all successful people have high IQ, then nobody without a high IQ will be successful. Therefore, high IQ is, indeed, required.
You might want to re-word this law. Depends on whether you use the law of induction or deduction.
By induction, yes, you're correct. But if we use deduction, high IQ is indeed not required.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Leo Chan wrote:
Depends on whether you use the law of induction or deduction.
By induction, yes, you're correct. But if we use deduction, high IQ is indeed not required. Not sure I agree, Leo. Even using deductive reasoning, the premise is an absolute, therefore the conclusion is incorrect.
(p â q) ⢠(¬q â ¬p)
Construct me your proof and we'll discuss it.
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
Not sure I agree, Leo. Even using deductive reasoning, the premise is an absolute, therefore the conclusion is incorrect.
Construct me a proof and we'll discuss it. An absolute? I dunno.
High IQ is absolutely needed to be successful is in fact by induction only.
Why don't you construct a proof that shows it also works in deduction.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Leo Chan wrote:
An absolute? I dunno.
High IQ is absolutely needed to be successful is in fact by induction only.
Why don't you construct a proof that shows it also works in deduction. It's an absolute because you said it is. You said, "all successful people have high IQ." That "all" makes it an absolute, Leo, by your own law.
If all successful people have high IQ, one can deduce that if someone does not have a high IQ, they have no chance to be successful, therefore negating your first premise.
(p â q) ⢠(¬q â ¬p) if I remember my p-q notation correctly.
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
It's an absolute because you said it is. You said, "all successful people have high IQ." That "all" makes it an absolute, Leo, by your own law. Oh, you're right. I forgot about the "all". . .
Christopher Ambler wrote:
If all successful people have high IQ, one can deduce that if someone does not have a high IQ, they have no chance to be successful, therefore negating your first premise.
(p â q) ⢠(¬q â ¬p) if I remember my p-q notation correctly. Man, real analysis was not a fun class. I gave back everything already. . .
Photographer
Fotografia-di-Asia
Posts: 6118
Park City, Utah, US
I like how this thread ended. 
Photographer
CLT
Posts: 12979
Winchester, Virginia, US
*looks around* kinda got quiet in here.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Leo Chan wrote:
I like how this thread ended. Hey, I think it was our moral duty to inject just a little logic into the discussion!
Photographer
dgold
Posts: 10302
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, US
I don't know what these forums are for if they aren't for opinions. Wow, what cut throat world this is. I think I'm going to stop by my agent's office today. Yeah, a real physical agent. I love you all unconditionaly. Bianca Bianca...you are way too beautiful.
Boy, if you can act too, fuhghettaboutit!
Have fun...
Photographer
NLI
Posts: 125
Wichita, Kansas, US
I think models charge what they think they're worth. Come up w/a fee schedule for various kinds of modeling. Charge away.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Leo Chan wrote:
Christopher Ambler wrote:
It's an absolute because you said it is. You said, "all successful people have high IQ." That "all" makes it an absolute, Leo, by your own law. Oh, you're right. I forgot about the "all". . .
Man, real analysis was not a fun class. I gave back everything already. . . hOW DOES THAT GO..iF one PART OF A STAEMENT IS ILLOGICAL THEN THE ENTIRE STATEMENT IS ILLOGICAL?
Caps...sorry....
ALL...would render that statement illogical as there are people with low IQ's who are successful. remeber, IQ is a measurement as to how much you are capable of learning. Not how much you actually learn. You do not need to be an Enstein to learn enough to be a true sucess.
I loved logic...
Good bout dudes...
I loved it..
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
Vance wrote:
ALL...would render that statement illogical as there are people with low IQ's who are successful. You are arguing with the validity of the premise. I was merely arguing that the premise was inconsistent with the conclusion. Strictly the logic. It's all about the logic :-)
Photographer
Luminos
Posts: 6065
Columbia, Maryland, US
I always find these exchanges interesting ..... window to the soul of who is shooting and for what reasons.
I'm going to grab the camera and go out and do a scenic or two.
Model
Jessie Layne
Posts: 30
Dallas, Texas, US
in my opinion... i don't shoot nude but i find a beautiful nude can be just as tasteful as any of the clothed shots... here are the guidelines (if i shot nude) that i would follow:
If he is a GWC then he wants the pics because he just likes to see naked women, in which case i say no way!
2nd if the pose it self looks erotic with cloths on then it is not tasteful nude.
3rd if you want the pics for yourself then pay real money for a real photographer with real experience and don't settle for less then perfect.
Note: i see beautiful images when i see Kate Moss and other models that know how to pose and do so beautifully.
Photographer
Vance C McDaniel
Posts: 7609
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
You are arguing with the validity of the premise. I was merely arguing that the premise was inconsistent with the conclusion. Strictly the logic. It's all about the logic :-) Live long and prosper..
Model
The Thorny Rose
Posts: 14142
Chicago, Illinois, US
Daniela V wrote:
and the rest of us are just strippers. Well then I'm in love with a stripper....
*rolls eyes at half-ass stripper model definition of OP*
And Envy, thanks for posting those... it's good to know I've got better boobs than Kate Moss
Model
Zoua Yang
Posts: 31
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Is lingerie or sheer/see-thru clothing consider lingerie or implied? Will you do see-thru clothing? Where does see-thru falls under in modeling?
I got photographers wanting me to model see-thru lingerie. I'm not comfortable with my nipples and private out to the public yet.
-Zoua Yang
Photographer
Mikel Featherston
Posts: 11103
San Diego, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
Hey, I think it was our moral duty to inject just a little logic into the discussion! Not to mention being a refreshing change.
Photographer
Le Beck Photography
Posts: 4114
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Ambler wrote:
It's an absolute because you said it is. You said, "all successful people have high IQ." That "all" makes it an absolute, Leo, by your own law.
If all successful people have high IQ, one can deduce that if someone does not have a high IQ, they have no chance to be successful, therefore negating your first premise.
(p â q) ⢠(¬q â ¬p) if I remember my p-q notation correctly. Please don't forget who is President of these United States, and occupy all the seats of both legislative branches, unless you include animal cunning amorality, and ruthlessness in your measure of IQ. Most social scientists such as Cultural Anthropologists (at least at the Universities I attended) dismissed IQ as a concept decades ago. The tests are hopelessly slanted culturally. They cannot measure other sorts of intelligence besides academic.
Besides, any measure that equates an advice columnist without a single meaningful accomplishment in her life like Marilyn Vos Savant with the Author, Poet, Philosopher, and Scientist, one of the prime instigators of the Romantic Revolution: Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe is hopelessly and completely useless.
|
