simplyred wrote:

lol Right!

I get your point, but it has to be taken in context. 

A pro shoots in a hotel room because that is the location he chooses to use because it is right for the ambiance of the project. 

A GWC shoots in a hotel room because he has no place else to go.

Brian Diaz wrote:
If the goal is to make photographs, you are a photographer.  If your goal is to get girls to stand in front of you in various degrees of undress while you take pictures of them, you are a GWC.

Umm, what about those of us who want both of those as goals. 

God- if I wanted to shoot boring stuff I would be at your kid's soccer game or your niece's wedding, hehe.

-Jose

Nicholson Photography wrote:
if your shooting at the models house and dont have strobes... you might be a gwc.

One of my best natural light shoots ever was at a models home which had 3 levels to it and every space in it was perfect for natural light work. She turned a warehouse into her home and her ceiling was nothing but white plexiglass which made an awesome difuser.
Guess that makes me a GWC now? Damn.

JvR wrote:

I'm with Brian on this one.

So even the playboy photographers, or anyone who does any type of nude work, artistic or not, is a GWC?

Champion wrote:

I like that definition. I think I'd change it to "If the goal is to make [i]quality[/b] photographs, you are a photographer." Obviously levels of quality would vary. No need to get into opinions and what not.

Every photographer doesn't need to use elaborate lighting setups. So many seem to have a problem with those who shoot a bit of reality. I find it interesting that the general thought on photography comes across like everyone who is "professional" is shooting fashion or needs to manipulate every aspect of what they shoot. All due credit to being able to do that but credit should never be denied to those who can capture things just as they are seen.

Not sure if this fits the thread but to me professional means knowing how to achieve the results(i.e. the exposure,etc etc) you want in your photographs consistantly.Nothing to do with money and quality really, imo. I have seen tons of hobby photographers who are more consistant and achieving their goal in their photographs than some who make tons of money at it.

Cameron Watson wrote:

An Olympus E10, its old and beat up.... the built in fill flash and well thats it! my profile lists the published credits from this year. I have sold some art pieces, architectural images mostly, a couple of art nudes. At the end of the day, in my mind I am still a GWC. I am proud of the fact I dont lug tons of equipment around and that 90% of what I shoot is available light. And I hate that I dont know more, cant always shoot the things I see, due to inexperience.

But more importantly, (and God knows that enough about me)I repsect the guys who can, who with little to no equipment, crank out great work or at least try and are brave enought to put it out there for all to see.

Can we call a guy who has 20k worth of stuff, proclaims '30 years experience as a professional' and still takes crappy, cheesy, exploitive nude pics a GWC? Simply because he doesnt have a creative bone in is body yet tries to justify his 'art'?

Finally, where is the real GWC to make this fun again damnit, Angelina can wait...

Nice to see someone still doing good work with an E10. It was also my first digital camera and I still use it now and then for some stuff. Especially marco work since I have the macro lens attachment.

Nicholson Photography wrote:
if your shooting at the models house and dont have strobes... you might be a gwc.

Some models have some awesome houses. I have used a models home as a location before. Doesn`t make me a GWC.

TORIA wrote:
I'm not a guy...and I shoot 99% with natural light.  I absolutely HATE indoor shooting...so...what you call me? 

A BAD ASS CHICK WITH A CAMERA!!!

Nicholson Photography wrote:
if your shooting at the models house and dont have strobes... you might be a gwc.

the only difference between strobes and natural light is recycle time.

Kharizma wrote:
I'm not a guy...and I shoot 99% with natural light.  I absolutely HATE indoor shooting...so...what you call me? 

A BAD ASS CHICK WITH A CAMERA!!!

LOL...I always find it comical that a lot of "guys" think that you gotta have "strobes" and a BIG ASSED lens to be more than a GWC.  I don't own a strobe...don't wanna own a strobe and find studio work extremely boring.  I did a shoot last Friday with Josie Nutter and since it's a bit cold outside in KC this time of year, we shot in a 40 room, 100 year old mansion.  We had the entire place to ourselves for as long as we wanted it.  If a person reaches outside of themselves for a bit of creativity they can achieve whatever they want.  I don't think I'm a GWC...heck I'm not even a GUY...lol...

P.S.  Love your new stuff Kharizma!

Toria wrote:
I'm not a guy...and I shoot 99% with natural light.  I absolutely HATE indoor shooting...so...what you call me? 

I'd call you a great natural light/outdoor photographer. The are a lot of professional photographers that specialize in only natural light/outdoor photography. To do outdoor photography REALLY WELL is very difficult. You have to adapt to changing light conditions, the best time of the day to shoot for the most impact, etc...etc... Studio photography on the other hand is much more controlled.

Jeff

Brian Diaz wrote:
If the goal is to make photographs, you are a photographer.  If your goal is to get girls to stand in front of you in various degrees of undress while you take pictures of them, you are a GWC.
...
[/i]

I think that this is a good working defitition. Well said.

Henry

Michael Thayer wrote:
What's the difference between a professional photographer, an amateur photographer, and a GWC (Guy with Camera)?

Take a look at my portfolio.

Am I a GWC?

I like to think I'm an experienced amateur, but my camera is pretty basic, I shoot mostly in automatic, and I don't own any lights.  Most of my shoots are done outdoors or at the model's home.

What's your definition?

This discussion/debate over GWC... 

To be deemed as such or not  -in the end-  does not make your work better or worse.  Doesn't get you any more or any less clients.  Doesn't affect the amount of money or time you put into photography.  Will never stop you from improving, becoming stagnant, or getting worse at photography.

It's simply a distinction that you might get on the internet. 

But when you step away from the computer and pick up whatever you use to capture images the only thing that really matters is the photo you want to take.  It (the distinction GWC) has no effect on where you shoot, what equipment you use, how much you paid for it, where you got it, how long you've been shooting, where you went to school or who you learned under.  It was a term I never heard until I read a forum on a photography networking site.

Until that term actually has some type of effect on your work... well, why even care what it means or whether you fit someone's definition of it?

Brian Diaz wrote:
Being professional means knowing when to be unprofessional.

Very well said! Prince Jewell- GWC

GWC wrote:

Yeah, I am the most talked-about photographer on MM. Check out my profile. I am the SLAMMIN'est.

Say, do any of you have any suggestions on how to clean a nipple-print off your lens' coated optics without scratching them?

GWC!

A lens cleaning cloth saturated in rubbing alcohol

DBA1 wrote:
My definition of a "GWC" is a guy or girl who's only photographic interest is taking *Bad* nude images of there models with no artistic value.

So you make the definition of "GWC" hinge on artistic merit? Good luck. Even the supreme court couldn't tackle that one.

By your definition I'd say Nan Goldin's a GWC. Does that fit?

Bah, this is B.S. -- none of you chumps are GWCs. 'Cuz I am THE GWC and I say so.

I gotta go. I'm supposed to be shooting a TFP with Paris Hilton waxing the rims on my Ferrarri with her b(o)(o)bies... BRB.

GWC!